Weekend Update 5/10/20

[wcfn100]

Apparently the engineers on diesel or electric  passenger locos were expendable since the '30s, since Es, GG1s, DL109s, EP-4s, Sharknoses, C-liners and PAs all had front end cabs?

Yep, those guys were totally expendable.

Jason

[Dave V]

Apparently the engineers on diesel or electric  passenger locos were expendable since the '30s, since Es, GG1s, DL109s, EP-4s, Sharknoses, C-liners and PAs all had front end cabs?

Haven't seen a front-end cab GG1 before...

[davefoxx]

Apparently the engineers on diesel or electric  passenger locos were expendable since the '30s, since Es, GG1s, DL109s, EP-4s, Sharknoses, C-liners and PAs all had front end cabs?

GG1s did not have cabs at the ends of the locomotive, and its center cab design was passed along to a predecessor in the PRR fleet, the Class P5a locomotives, after a grade crossing accident killed the crew of a P5a.  The P5a originally had cabs at the end, but the entire class was rebuilt (and subsequent locomotives built) with the redesigned center cab.

DFF

[nkalanaga]

Also, most passenger locos still had a "nose", usually with some form of collision post(s), so the cab didn't take the full impact.  That's one of the reasons freight hood units usually have something in front of the cab.

[tehachapifan]

The long hood vs. short hood forward debate is definitely one where I can see it both ways (pardon the pun). While I get the argument about putting all that mass between the offending object and the crew, it sure seems like the trade-off would be a really significant reduction in visibility. This said, I'm not a RR worker, so this is speculation on my part.

[SD452XR]

I never liked running loco’s long hood forward or with high nose like the SD9’s. I wanted to be able to see. Those units were also loud so it was hard sometimes to hear the conductor when calling out signals.

[CRL]

It all depends what you run into.

[rickb773]

This isn't me trying to be a smart a$$, but why did PRR run their diesels long nose forward?

The railroads in my area seemed to think of diesels as straight steam engine replacements and the steamers certainly had the cab at the rear of the engine. PRSL's Baldwin AS-16's definitely had the long hood stenciled being the front end. It wasn't until the arrival of their GP-38's that the cab end was considered (and stenciled as) the front end and they still ran long end first a lot of the time.

I think the part of the country the railroad ran in was also a consideration. The PRSL in southern NJ seemed to have a grade crossing every half mile and a lot of automobile  driver's that needed to be removed from the gene pool.


Photo by Gaisor


Photo by Jim Parker


Photo by Bob Vogel


Photo by Jim Parker

[Cajonpassfan]

I think you’ve nailed it...compared to the extremely constrained forward visibility out of a big boilered steam loco, the AS-16’s were easy, even long hood forward. Took a while to figure out short hood was even better...change comes gradually, kicking and screamin’
Otto K.

[Tom Todd]

I read somewhere long time ago that it was the collective bargaining units, unions, at each railroad that determined if a railroad ran long or short hood forward.
Tom Todd
😀

[DKS]

I think this might be the coolest project I’ve ever seen.

Craig.

Thank you, Craig!

[Ed Kapuscinski]

The railroads in my area seemed to think of diesels as straight steam engine replacements and the steamers certainly had the cab at the rear of the engine. PRSL's Baldwin AS-16's definitely had the long hood stenciled being the front end. It wasn't until the arrival of their GP-38's that the cab end was considered (and stenciled as) the front end and they still ran long end first a lot of the time.

And amusingly in that case, even THOSE were setup with dual controls so they could easily be run LHF.

[CRL]

Running long hood forward was just overcompensating for other shortcomings.