0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Except that the WP owned not even one 6 axle unit, so far as I'm aware of.Really unique if you think about it.No SD7's or SD9's, SD35's, 40's, no 6 axle Alco, GE, or EMD power right up until the Borg took over.
...Second, UP merged WP in 1982, before the 6 axle craze came to dominate new engine orders.
Ahem...I've got to point out that the most successful 6 axle diesel as I last knew was the EMD SD40-2 that began production in 1972.But before that, the SD-35, 40 and 45 models by EMD were popular as well as the C series and U series products by Alco and GE, all well before 1980, in fact, prior to 1970.
Interesting that they clearly mark the BNSF unit as 'alternate history' yet the description of the WP unit makes it sound like it was a real unit.As a Santa Fe fan, I'm throwing a flag on that one.The FP45's had more paint schemes and numbers for a small class than any other units on the railroad, there's a lot to pick from without resorting to fantasy schemes.I suppose I shouldn't grumble as at least it was in PRR like the Lima one. The body shells on the Lima were really pretty good if you put a decent mechanism under them, rebuild the pilots, etc. My rebuilds on top of an SD40-2 Kato chassis are just outstanding, as you can throw so much more weight in there that they are my heavy-haul champs.
Yes, and WP bought the 4 axle GP versions consistent with their usage and operating philosophy. As to my point about 4 vs 6 axle engines, look at sales of the 4 axles vs 6 axle units through the 80s and early 90s. 4 axle unit sales decline through the period as more and more roads went with primarily 6 axle engines until you could barely find any GP60s compared to SD60s. I don't even think EMD offered a GP70. GE did have the 8-40B, but I am not aware of any 4 axle 44-9s or AC units. I merely tried to make the point that if WP had continued as an independent line past the early 80s, they would likely have switched to buying CC designs from simple lack of offerings by manufacturers.
This is true. It was part timing and part operating philosophy. Short fast trains that 4 axle power could handle on their low grades. The Feather River Route had notably lower grades than other routes out of California, one reason the UP wanted the WP so badly.Second, UP merged WP in 1982, before the 6 axle craze came to dominate new engine orders.
Less "philosophy" than an operational necessity. Same reason they didn't (but tried I think) E's on the CZ- simply not enough tractive-power ratio.Same reason the D&RGW had many more 4 axle units until large multi-motor drags were introduced.And why they didn't pick Utah RW? They had hand me downs from BN so could have just dine the number changes and be damned.d
Looking at just the D&H PS-1, the announcement says "Era 1950s". The car says "Built 3-1964", and it has a U-1 wheel inspection dot, which means it's 1978 or later.
And here I thought they were pushing the boundaries calling the PRR X53 version (built 9/59) a 1950s era car (I will leave it to the Pennsy experts to determine if it is actually an X53).The other car (in addition to the D&H) marked "Era 1950s" is the B&A State of Maine car. Which is lettered "Built 1-65". I don't know enough about the B&A to know if they ever had such a car, I've depended on ESM Magor cars for the couple on my roster.The "50s era" labeling by manufacturers and publishers really annoys me when what they really mean is more along the lines of "1955 to 1965". Yes, there were GP-18s and GP-20s that had dry paint before 11:59 PM on 12/31/1959, but they are distinctly early 1960s era locomotives. Likewise these boxcars.
And why they didn't pick Utah RW? They had hand me downs from BN so could have just dine the number changes and be damned.d
The Bangor & Aroostook has reporting marks BAR, where as the Boston & Albany has reporting marks B&A.
Author
Topic: Athearn N Scale Announcements December 28, 2020 (Read 3861 times)
