Railroaders' Nostalgia > Locomotive Type Question

Am I the only engineer around who never gave a rats patoot about what model and type of engine(s) I was running, as long as they ran and didn't break down?

whistlepig Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Am I the only engineer around who never gave a
> rats patoot about what model and type of engine(s)
> I was running, as long as they ran and didn't
> break down?

No. There plenty of engineers and conductors who didn't really care about the model of an engine. The only thing that concerned me was HP.

While I had preferences, as I'm sure most do, as long as the toilet didn't stink, the seats were at least tolerable, and everything worked, I really didn't care.

Now having said that, if I was in a position of making up or modifying my consist, I would opt for GE's over EMD's as a rule and starting not too long before I retired definitely units NOT equipped with that "Trip Optimizer" crap UP had (couldn't use it if the lead unit didn't have it <G>).



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/10/17 09:24 by Railbaron.

I was just the opposite. Whenever possible, I opted for EMDs. Couldn't stand GEs. But, some folks like Chevy and some like Ford.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/10/17 10:39 by whistlepig.

I didn't mind an old F unit on the Zippers but they were gone by the mid 70s.

I would rather have a Cadillac (EMD) on the point and the entire consist than a washing machine (GE). Newer the better. Also, GEs rattled, banged, and bounced around.


Nudge

whistlepig Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Am I the only engineer around who never gave a
> rats patoot about what model and type of engine(s)
> I was running, as long as they ran and didn't
> break down?


Probably

EO

I preferred the EMD product on the BN, especially the 40-2's. They had a good "seat of the pants" type of feel, quicker response to throttle/dynamic brake changes and rode smoother. Nudge pointed out the bounce characteristic of the GE's. The C30-7 had a severe lateral action that was bad enough there were times I worried about the possibility of turning over a rail. My downside on the 40-2 was the two cycle vibration. After nine hours of that my body would get a peculiar "itch".

Kennard Britton
Bedford, TX

With older units I would have always preferred EMD over GE for all the reasons previously stated. My change of opinion was the introduction of the EMD SD70M that SP got and UP continued with. With my territory, long grade and multiple tunnels, the EMD SD70M's and follow-up SD70ACe's were "slippery" in both power and dynamic, were noisy, more subject to exhaust gases entering the cab in tunnels, and would de-rate quickly in the tunnels due to heat and ingesting their own exhaust. The GE C44's, both DC and AC, did much better with all these issues and is why I got to prefer GE over EMD.

Now to go to "Nudge's" post, I would be right there with him on wanting "Cadillacs" (SD9's) on the point. They might have been old and funky but they rode good, handled good, and were fun to run.

But back to the original post, I really didn't have much of a preference what I was given as I had little choice provided the toilet didn't stink, seats were at least tolerable, and everything worked.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 06/11/17 09:07 by Railbaron.

Always preferred an EMD over GE or Alco.

Now, you guys that preferred EMD's over GE's. Is it because the EMD's tended to be more reliable or what?

whistlepig Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Am I the only engineer around who never gave a
> rats patoot about what model and type of engine(s)
> I was running, as long as they ran and didn't
> break down?

Personally, I bid to a job this year because it was days but also because of the locomotive that I get to use everyday. Happens to be ex-SP 5280 (okay folks, which one is that?). Good comfy locomotive that has quite the heritage. And the roundhouse services the toilet every week so it stays smelling nice!

roustabout Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Personally, I bid to a job this year because it was days but also because of the locomotive that I
> get to use everyday. Happens to be ex-SP 5280 (okay folks, which one is that?). Good comfy
> locomotive that has quite the heritage. And the roundhouse services the toilet every week so it
> stays smelling nice!

Well, I know it's an SD7 in the original, as delivered number, but I don't know the P&W number although I assume it's the Albany switcher (1501 ???).

Speaking of P&W, one of their trains is passing Goss Stadium as I type this (hear it on the TV).

I got to the point that I didn't bother to think about if it was an EMD or GE; they all worked OK. It took a few years to get used to them, but then I much preferred the Wide Cab engines. Frank

PHall Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Now, you guys that preferred EMD's over GE's. Is
> it because the EMD's tended to be more reliable or
> what?


They were more user friendly. Haven't run a GE in many years. Maybe things have changed.

CPCoyote Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> PHall Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Now, you guys that preferred EMD's over GE's.
> Is
> > it because the EMD's tended to be more reliable
> or
> > what?
>
>
> They were more user friendly. Haven't run a GE in
> many years. Maybe things have changed.

Jeeze Mike, I couldn't disagree with you more, at least regarding the old C-Boats. Don't you recall those restrooms behind the rear wall of the cabs of their? Talking about "user-friendly"! Stand up and very civilized since the toilet paper & seat was not covered with sand. Better, 'resting' in one could be a nice, low-decibel experience, given that the darn GE's so frequently tripped their governors for one reason or another.

EO

EO

I always like an original SD 45. Especially the SP 8800 series. They would pull and make transition around 35 mph and keep loading 600 amps. Today give me a GE AC .. Much better cab design and the ability to keep pulling without slipping or stalling.

Posted from Android

hogheaded Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> CPCoyote Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > PHall Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Now, you guys that preferred EMD's over GE's.
> > Is
> > > it because the EMD's tended to be more
> reliable
> > or
> > > what?
> >
> >
> > They were more user friendly. Haven't run a GE
> in
> > many years. Maybe things have changed.
>
> Jeeze Mike, I couldn't disagree with you more, at
> least regarding the old C-Boats. Don't you recall
> those restrooms behind the rear wall of the cabs
> of their? Talking about "user-friendly"! Stand up
> and very civilized since the toilet paper & seat
> was not covered with sand. Better, 'resting' in
> one could be a nice, low-decibel experience, given
> that the darn GE's so frequently tripped their
> governors for one reason or another.
>
> EO
>
> EO

I preferred running the GE's, on the flat territory I ran, once up to speed, they stayed there. In regard to the bathroom......I initially was a fan, but as has been said, they tended to rock a bit, which occasionally meant blue water seeping out from under the door.......Right into grips......Only one experience with that, but on the first day of a 4 day turn, it was enough to sour me on them a bit!

On the other hand, ask any pilot about the type/make/model of any aircraft he ever piloted and you will get a far different response.