Author Topic: New heights at Tehachapi  (Read 1082 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Coxy

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 180
  • Gender: Male
  • Respect: +7
    • Coxy's N Scale and Railroading Blog
New heights at Tehachapi
« on: June 17, 2018, 12:45:13 PM »
+2
Here's a great drone vid of trains meeting at the loop...


Cheers,
Coxy

jagged ben

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 3065
  • Respect: +416
Re: New heights at Tehachapi
« Reply #1 on: June 17, 2018, 12:54:43 PM »
0
Pretty good editing.  Happy to see an H1 in there.

C855B

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 10674
  • Respect: +2288
Re: New heights at Tehachapi
« Reply #2 on: June 17, 2018, 01:07:54 PM »
0
[...sigh...]

Home. Great views. As much time as I spent there many decades ago, at least from the air the new track didn't alter the ambiance too badly. For that matter, it's a blessing in disguise in that we have meets at Walong again. When distributed power was adopted more seriously back in the late '70s, trains became too long for the relatively short siding and meets became rare.

Two things that trouble me, tho'. Where are the UP trains? And it was all the GE power you can eat, save one GP60 likely being trailed dead in consist. :(
« Last Edit: June 17, 2018, 03:02:38 PM by C855B »

jagged ben

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 3065
  • Respect: +416
Re: New heights at Tehachapi
« Reply #3 on: June 17, 2018, 02:56:48 PM »
0
[...sigh...]
Two things that trouble me, tho'. Where are the UP trains? And it was all the GE power you can eat, save one rebuilt GP40-2 likely being trailed dead in consist. :(

Pretty sure that was a GP60.  (Santa Fe had no GP40-2s.)  Probably being transferred to a different location for local service. 

C855B

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 10674
  • Respect: +2288
Re: New heights at Tehachapi
« Reply #4 on: June 17, 2018, 03:09:34 PM »
0
Yep. Thanks. I looked again. Corrected. I had GP40 on the mind since I was surprised it wasn't an SD, also forgetting they had only the one (gone in '88) and then the 40Xs. GP60 it is.

Maybe a lick of oldfartitis, too. I was watching trains there when the RSD15s were still in the 800s.

Ed Kapuscinski

  • Global Moderator
  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 24095
  • Head Kino
  • Respect: +8039
    • Conrail 1285
Re: New heights at Tehachapi
« Reply #5 on: June 18, 2018, 05:32:21 PM »
0
Whoa. Santa Fe didn't have GP40-2s? That's so surprising to me.

I feel like the GP40-2 was MADE for the ATSF. But they bought the 39-2 instead, right? Something to do with altitudes??

squirrelhunter

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 720
  • Respect: +165
Re: New heights at Tehachapi
« Reply #6 on: June 18, 2018, 06:27:58 PM »
0
They had a weird motive power progressions like the MP did. They were big on SD45's and 45-2's, and when the 75 recession hit they stopped buying new power mostly.  When things picked up they were busy rebuilding CF7's and SD26's and didn't start buying new stuff again until 77, when they got SD40-2's and C30-7's and medium stuff like GP39-2's and B23-7's.

They used GP39-2s in Colorado, but they were common in Texas too. Their best power ran LA-Chicago and a lot of the medium HP 4 axle units worked KC to Texas and Texas to Clovis and Texas to Colorado. There are photos on the Carr Tracks site of the hot 885 Houston to LA train in 1978 being led by solid GP7/CF7 sets.

Curtis Kyger

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 138
  • Respect: +91
Re: New heights at Tehachapi
« Reply #7 on: June 18, 2018, 06:41:03 PM »
0
GP39-2 verses GP40-2 would be the horsepower per cylinder consideration (fuel efficiency) or need for higher total horsepower required to get the job done.  Turbochargers did better at maintaining high horsepower at higher altitudes whereas non-turbocharged units lost power as atmospheric oxygen decreased.  As example, WP passed on GP38's and purchased U23B's. The U23B's had roughly the same horsepower at the crest to the mountains as down in Stockton.