Nostalgia & History > E57B Boxcab at Harlowton MT

Unit E57B, originally 10211B, now preserved at Harlowton, Montana.

---

---

---

again nicely done display.

---

This looks to be a 2-B-B. Is that correct? Would two of these
back to back be a 2-B-B+B-B-2? I seem to recall something along
that line, but I'm really weak on Milwaukee electrics.

Nick Tharalson,
Marion, IA

ntharalson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This looks to be a 2-B-B. Is that correct? Would
> two of these
> back to back be a 2-B-B+B-B-2?

Yes, that was the original configuration. In the 1930s, three unit sets were formed. In the 1950s, four unit sets were formed, and a single unit was equipped to serve as a yard engine. (Later, the Harlowton yard engine became a two-unit set.) In some of the four-unit sets, the pony truck was removed from one or both of the middle units.

Best regards,

Rob L.

I think it is a 2-B+B since the B trucks have an articulating joint connecting them in the middle of the unit. There were drawbars and knuckles between the units so I am not sure the should be a + or - between the units.

Posted from Windows Phone OS 7

(2-B+B)+(B+B-2) or (2-(B+B))+((B+B)-2) to fully define a two unit locomotive set.

Thus, a four unit set with one bob-tail middle unit would be
(2-(B+B))+(B+B)+((B+B)-2)+)+((B+B)-2)

-John

Thanks, John.

So regular drawbar and knuckle connections between units count the same as a solid pinned drawbar, eh?

That means a pair of SD40-2 units come up as C-C+C-C ?

Posted from Windows Phone OS 7

Or, (C-C)+(C-C).

fbe Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Thanks, John.
>
> So regular drawbar and knuckle connections between
> units count the same as a solid pinned drawbar,
> eh?
>

Show me an EF-3 or an EF-5 set that had regular drawbar and knuckle connections between units.

Best regards,

Rob L.

Rob,

I believe they all did. They came from GE that way. Well, that's not right they came from the factory as two unit EF-1 locomotives. When the MILW started building 3 and 4 unit sets they just left the couplers on both ends of each unit. The bobtail B units had the side frames around the pony truck cut back and and end like the one on the blind end of the truck with the coupler fixture. There were no pin lifters and I believe the linkage was pinned with a bolt so units could not be disconnected without tools.

My question is was the MILW retiring boxcabs when they were creating the EF-3 and EF-5 sets in order to make the pilotless trucks on the bobtail Bs or were they fabricating the sideframes and ends in the Milwaukee Shops? Were the units bobtailed in Milwaukee or Deer Lodge?

I will see if I can find my photo of the E50 end after the coupling accident to look at the connection between the units there.

Posted from Windows Phone OS 7

fbe Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Rob,
>
> I believe they all did. They came from GE that
> way. Well, that's not right they came from the
> factory as two unit EF-1 locomotives. When the
> MILW started building 3 and 4 unit sets they just
> left the couplers on both ends of each unit. The
> bobtail B units had the side frames around the
> pony truck cut back and and end like the one on
> the blind end of the truck with the coupler
> fixture. There were no pin lifters and I believe
> the linkage was pinned with a bolt so units could
> not be disconnected without tools.

I don't think so. Photo shows what's between units on 10200AB in Duluth. This is the same articulation that exists between the two trucks of each unit. No couplers, with or without pinlifters. No switchman or hostler, with or without three-point protection could un-do this. Only the shops could re-arrange these. If the E34C (middle unit) went down for repairs, so did the E34A and E34B.
>
> My question is was the MILW retiring boxcabs when
> they were creating the EF-3 and EF-5 sets in order
> to make the pilotless trucks on the bobtail Bs or
> were they fabricating the sideframes and ends in
> the Milwaukee Shops? Were the units bobtailed in
> Milwaukee or Deer Lodge?

When MILW started recombining two unit locomotives into three unit sets, at first they did it by rebuilding 2-(B+B) units into B+B bobtails for use as center "C" units. I think (without checking to be sure) they did something like 16 units this way. Then they decided this wasn't worth the effort, and subsequent 3 and 4 unit combinations were made with whatever they had available - but if a 2-(B+B) was used as an intermediate unit it's front coupler was removed and replaced with an articulated joint - not the other way around.

This lasted until very near the end. I've got a notation somewhere, from Bill Wilkerson I believe but right now can't find it, that in the very last years of electrification that couplers may have been installed between some consists, but seek verification on this.

LarryDoyle Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> When MILW started recombining two unit locomotives
> into three unit sets, at first they did it by
> rebuilding 2-(B+B) units into B+B bobtails for use
> as center "C" units. I think (without checking to
> be sure) they did something like 16 units this
> way. Then they decided this wasn't worth the
> effort, and subsequent 3 and 4 unit combinations
> were made with whatever they had available - but
> if a 2-(B+B) was used as an intermediate unit it's
> front coupler was removed and replaced with an
> articulated joint - not the other way around.
>

Not correct. I am paraphrasing from Noel Holley's fine book below:

Class EF-2 was first, appearing in Sept. 1932. The middle unit in these three-unit sets included cabs and pilot trucks but not pilots. Front couplers on the middle units were replaced with drawbars. There were 3 EF-3 sets assembled in 1932. Five more EF-2 motors followed in 1933, one in 1935, and three in 1936. This makes for a total of 18 EF-2s, 54 motors total.

The year 1936 marked the construction of the first EF-3 motors. These differed from the EF-2 sets in that the middle units had no control cabs or pilot trucks. The EF-3s had 15,000 lbs more weight on drivers and 2,500 lbs more tractive effort. The increase was insignificant in the eyes of train dispatchers, as both EF-2s and EF-3s were assigned the same tonnage rating. During 1936, 3 cables middle units were built by the Deer Lodge Shop, two in 1937, four in 1938 and three in 1939. Only twelve cabless units were ever built, enabling 12 EF-3 sets, 36 motors total.

Although Milwaukee Road continued to assemble three-unit motor sets between 1940 and 1954, all of them were EF-2s, i.e., the middle units retained cabs.

The first EF-5 set (a four-unit set with all traction motors banded with high-strength steel wire and traction motor shunts increased from one to three, enabling an increase in max speed from 35 to 45 MPH, plus other improvements including JR breakers, and solid gears replacing spring gears) was assembled in January, 1951 (the E25 set). Four more sets followed in 1951, one in 1953, five in 1960 and two in 1961. The only EF-5s to come into existence after 1961 were a few cobbled together in which not all units bore the same number. There were never more than 12 EF-5s in operation at one time. Five EF-5 sets received diesel MU controllers in 1958 or thereafter, but the diesel MU equipment on box motors was discontinued and removed by the end of 1967.

Best regards,

Rob L.

>That means a pair of SD40-2 units come up as C-C+C-C ?

Not unless they are [semi-]permanently coupled together.

> When MILW started recombining two unit locomotives into three unit sets, at first they did it by rebuilding 2-(B+B) units into B+B bobtails for use as center "C" units. I think (without checking to be sure) they did something like 16 units this way. Then they decided this wasn't worth the effort, and subsequent 3 and 4 unit combinations were made with whatever they had available - but if a 2-(B+B) was used as an intermediate unit it's front coupler was removed and replaced with an articulated joint - not the other way around.

The use or non-use of knuckle couplers between units most likely depended on cost (i.e. what the AFE's authorized at any particular point in time and what the string-savers were crafty enough to resort to). I've always suspected that those "B" units, at least some them, were created by cutting the frames of A units to remove the parts of the castings associated with the pilot trucks, and that in later years the expense to do this wasn't authorized. This would also account for the apparent increase in weight (on drivers) for the 4-wheel B units.

It's also certain that GE had some sort of "permanent" method of coupling the truck frames of the two A units comprising a locomotive as factory equipment, but once these left the factory, toss a coin. One thing is for certain, when knuckle couplers were used between units, special procedures had to be used to uncouple them,

59 years of use, and they were almost trouble-free.

You'd think the modern RR's would remember that, and start stringing more wire. In the long run, it seems it would be cheaper than buying diesel fuel, doing oil changes, prime mover rebuilds and having to buy new engines all the time. Plus, it would be "green."

Trouble is, you have to maintain the overhead stuff and the substations, and that isn't free, even if you don't have to worry about the damnfool copper thieves coming by one night and stripping down 500 miles of wire to sell for 37 cents to the scrap dealer. (BTW, copper thieves are nothing new. The MILW had *a lot* of trouble with that in 1915 when they were originally wiring the line.)

It would be interesting to see how costs would work out on line maintenance vs fuel costs and maintenance for diesels, ignoring first cost of installation, which these days is probably the real deal killer.

lwilton Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Trouble is, you have to maintain the overhead
> stuff and the substations, and that isn't free,
> even if you don't have to worry about the damnfool
> copper thieves coming by one night and stripping
> down 500 miles of wire to sell for 37 cents to the
> scrap dealer. (BTW, copper thieves are nothing
> new. The MILW had *a lot* of trouble with that in
> 1915 when they were originally wiring the line.)

You have to worry about copper thieves while the wires are not hot. Once in service and hot, it's not much of a problem.

>
> It would be interesting to see how costs would
> work out on line maintenance vs fuel costs and
> maintenance for diesels, ignoring first cost of
> installation, which these days is probably the
> real deal killer.

Line maintenance, electric motive maintenance and electric power was much cheaper than diesel motive power maintenance plus fuel cost on the 1970s Milwaukee, even before OPEC. Probably even more so now. But, as you say, the up-front one-time cost is huge, so we haven't seen any main-line RR electrification projects since way back. There are various ideas out there about cutting the up-front cost, e.g., providing the utilities right-of-way for overhead power lines, asking the utilities and/or governments for financing, etc.

Best regards,

Rob L.

The MILW lost catenary while the lines were hot. I guess I won't give the specifics of how that is done but it does happen. There are probably sensors now to alert the railroad if this happens.

Posted from Windows Phone OS 7

"Pantograph" is spelled incorrectly on the marker.

Be Well,

Tim Colbert K3HX

An old man from a time when proper use of the language was
considered the norm for an educated person and who is appalled
(but not surprised) by the "dumbing down" of basic language skills.

That is notable. But I don't really know which is worse, the misspelling of a word, or the completely wrong conclusion for the termination of electric operations shown in the last sentence. That's the sort of thing that grade-school teachers will latch onto (since it comes from a "historical source") and teach as gospel to the young'uns. And then we will have a New Modern History that just doesn't happen to bear any two points in common with what really happened.

lwilton Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> But I don't really know which is
> worse, the misspelling of a word, or the
> completely wrong conclusion for the termination of
> electric operations shown in the last sentence.

The last sentence of which post?

TIA,

Rob L.