Nostalgia & History > WAG Wednesday: Oh, those SP consists!

Before I went to work for the Santa Fe, and even before I picked up a camera and started shooting regularly I can recall hearing railfans in the early 1970s talking about the Southern Pacific’s proclivity for unusual consists. I remember one guy in particular chortling about how SP would “hook anything up, even switch engines to get a train over the road!” I was reminded of those words when I scanned Bill’s shot below. It certainly is a consist that would make any experienced railroader or railfan look twice!

That said, I will offer SP a bit of defense. I can see a man sitting in the first switcher which would suggest to me the rear brakeman is riding the head end. So after my years in train service I can propose this might actually some one-unit SP local with a long train which has a lot of station work to do. In the course of their work they could have picked up the 2 switch engines and the caboose/crane cars behind the 2 hoppers which will be set out at their next work station down the road.

If not, then I have to assume this is just another one of those zany SP consists… ;^)

1. SP 3540 with switchers 2524 & 2626 and caboose with a crane & boom car near the point near Delano, CA on September 21, 1973.
Photo by William A. Gibson (WAG) Sr.

Thanks for looking back!
Lance Garrels (santafe199)
Art Gibson (wag216)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/25/22 22:22 by santafe199.

---

The issue of switchers mixed into line freight consists is the amount of coupler swing: switchers have a lot to move cars around sharp industrial curves, road engines have only enough to negotiate main line curves. If the slack runs in, the consist is in dynamic or heavy independent braking, or is shoving the train backwards those free-swinging switcher couplers can jack-knife and derail the consist.
It was explained to me (but I have never searched for them) that switchers had moveable coupler blocks that were to be positioned to restrict coupler swing and some derailments were closed out when it was discovered that crews had not used the blocks properly.
As I understand it switchers (more than one) on the SP were only to be positioned immediately behind the leading road unit although I have seen single switchers moved Dead In Train way back in the train.
I hope someone with more knowledge on this can correct, expand, or clarify my old memories on this.

What do you mean "Those SP consists"? SP consists were always concise and well thought out!

Out

---

That is a nice, clean consist, unusual for us mid-westerners, and neat numbers too.
Brian Stevens

Mike is right, the SP rule required non-alignment control MUed locomotives to be limited to the second and third position in a consist with road locomotives equipped with dynamic brake. Looking at the rule, that consist is correct, even though actually it would be safer to have the road unit with the alignment control coupler against the train... This way they have 1 unit of dynamic, 3 seats on the lead unit, and the best ride on the point.

All of the smaller non-MU switchers, eg. everything 1200HP or less, had to be back in the train with less than about 1000 trailing tons.
G

callum_out Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What do you mean "Those SP consists"? SP consists
> were always concise and well thought out!
>
> Out

Of course they were! I think the roundhouses spent most of their time calculating the exact horsepower needs for each train and adding units accordingly.-BMT

1. C of I August 1976. (Forgot to put my telephone pole filter on.)

2. West Colton November 1975.

3. West Colton January 1978

---

---

---