Skip to main content

This thread is most recently updated 1/23/15 with even more photos.

 

Here are three EMD E unit builders photos:

 

 

Rock Island 001

Wabash 001

Frisco 001

These photos were taken at EMD's plant in La Grange, Il., in 1950, -51, and '52, top to bottom.  They were taken from virtually the exact same spot on the property--notice the pole in the left background. 

 

 

If you have some builder photos, please share them here or start a thread.  These are from a very colorful era of US trains.  While my personal preference strongly favors EMD F units, the E's were really, really good in their own right.

Attachments

Images (3)
  • Rock Island 001
  • Wabash 001
  • Frisco 001
Last edited by Pingman
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

Sam, how about starting an EMD builders photo thread for EMD Demonstrators.

 

When I attended the GM EMD "The Diesel That Did It" 50th Anniversary for the FT model at the La Grange plant in 1989, EMD had quite a few Demonstrator models on display as well.  Made for some great pictures which I have yet to find since moving.

Originally Posted by Pingman:

Sam, how about starting an EMD builders photo thread for EMD Demonstrators.

 

To be correct, that former Amtrak SDP40F, rebuilt for Engineering Department test & development, really is NOT a "demonstrator.

 

When I attended the GM EMD "The Diesel That Did It" 50th Anniversary for the FT model at the La Grange plant in 1989, EMD had quite a few Demonstrator models on display as well.

 

Other than the FT103, I can recall only one other "demonstrator" there.

 

  Made for some great pictures which I have yet to find since moving.

 

As much as I like the look of the "modern" E unit in

it's latest incarnation, I've always wondered why EMD

eliminated the slant /shovel nose design in favor for

the F unit bulldog nose.

 

Was it cheaper?  Safer (better visibility / impact)?

Or did the look simply become obsolete?

 

/Mitch

 

Hmm - can you imagine a sloped nose F?

 

 

 

 

Originally Posted by Zephyr:

As much as I like the look of the "modern" E unit in

it's latest incarnation, I've always wondered why EMD

eliminated the slant /shovel nose design in favor for

the F unit bulldog nose.

 

Was it cheaper?  Safer (better visibility / impact)?

Or did the look simply become obsolete?

 

/Mitch

 

Hmm - can you imagine a sloped nose F?

Very simple Mitch, the railroads couldn't couple the older "slant nose" EA, E1, E2, E3, E4, E5, and E6 units nose to nose, plus, that "slant nose" was MUCH more difficult to manufacture when compared to the "F" type "Bull Dog" nose configuration.

Originally Posted by Hot Water:
Originally Posted by Pingman:

Sam, how about starting an EMD builders photo thread for EMD Demonstrators.

 

To be correct, that former Amtrak SDP40F, rebuilt for Engineering Department test & development, really is NOT a "demonstrator.

 

When I attended the GM EMD "The Diesel That Did It" 50th Anniversary for the FT model at the La Grange plant in 1989, EMD had quite a few Demonstrator models on display as well.

 

Other than the FT103, I can recall only one other "demonstrator" there.

 

  Made for some great pictures which I have yet to find since moving.

 

I'd like to see an EMD Demonstrator photo thread, even if the locomotive pictured above is not one, as Hot Water notes.  The blue and white color of the locomotive above is very similar to the road diesels I took pictures of that day in La Grange.  I feel worse that the photos of FT 103 are also MIA.  I'm still unpacking train items and tons of photographs so I'm optimistic they'll turn up.

 

EDIT:  It's possible that the locomotives I photographed at the Anniversary event were not demonstrators but locomotives, like the blue/white one above, that were simply immaculate in appearance.

 

Last edited by Pingman
Originally Posted by Hot Water:
Very simple Mitch, the railroads couldn't couple the older "slant nose" EA, E1, E2, E3, E4, E5, and E6 units nose to nose...

Why not?  They had couplers as seen in the photo above and this photo below.  Were they not designed or able to be modified for pulling heavy loads?  Or did the slant of the pilot under the coupler prohibit coupling to other similar engines (but not other engines or cars)?

 

Last edited by Zephyr

The slant nose made passage from one unit to another in nose to nose configuration dangerous.

 

The same problem proved true with the Lowry designed slant nose subway cars he designed for NYC subways in the 60's. People could get injured moving from car to car Because the side slant away on both sides with a huge opening. Shortly after those subways cars went into service they had big modifications done that really distorted thier "look" to compensate for this problem.

Originally Posted by Zephyr:
Originally Posted by Hot Water:
Very simple Mitch, the railroads couldn't couple the older "slant nose" EA, E1, E2, E3, E4, E5, and E6 units nose to nose...

Why not?  They had couplers as seen in the photo above and this photo below.  Were they not designed or able to be modified for pulling heavy loads?

 

No, they were not.

 

  Or did the slant of the pilot under the coupler prohibit coupling to other similar engines (but not other engines or cars)?

 

Exactly! Coupling nose-to-nose simply could not be done, which limited the flexibility of those early "E" type units. They also couldn't be effectivaly coupled to a passenger car with a diaphragm.

 

Hot Water,

 

I had read in old issues of Extra 2200 South that RF&P took such great care of their E's that it was easy for EMD to keep this one when it was traded in. Since you mention that EMD used this as a power source, did EMD have a power plant for their plant? Maybe a steam plant? For a plant that big I guess it would make sense. Also, I have this picture below that shows the EMD switcher shuffling around hopper cars. These are Clinchfield and SCL hoppers, which to me would mean coal country, plus what else would EMD be doing with hopper cars?

1a

Attachments

Images (1)
  • 1a: EMD switcher passes GP60 EMD 5.
Originally Posted by Sam Jumper:

Hot Water,

 

I had read in old issues of Extra 2200 South that RF&P took such great care of their E's that it was easy for EMD to keep this one when it was traded in. Since you mention that EMD used this as a power source, did EMD have a power plant for their plant?

 

Yes, a nice large, coal fired steam plant. Thus the continuous flow of hopper cars full of coal into and empties out the plant.

 

That old RF&P "E" unit was used as an electric power source for an Engineering research test cell, at that corner of the plant. It had nothing to do with providing electrical power for the whole facility.

 

The Engineering Department also had two or three 2700KW "stand-by" power generating units, which were used for engine component testing, plus providing electrical power into the grid from Comed. If Comed ever went down, the "Power Peaking Units", out back could supply the whole facility if need be.

 

Maybe a steam plant? For a plant that big I guess it would make sense. Also, I have this picture below that shows the EMD switcher shuffling around hopper cars. These are Clinchfield and SCL hoppers, which to me would mean coal country, plus what else would EMD be doing with hopper cars?

 

 

Originally Posted by Zephyr:

As much as I like the look of the "modern" E unit in

it's latest incarnation, I've always wondered why EMD

eliminated the slant /shovel nose design in favor for

the F unit bulldog nose.

 

Was it cheaper?  Safer (better visibility / impact)?

Or did the look simply become obsolete?

 

/Mitch

 


 

 

 

 

Safety. In collisions, things tended to travel up the slanted nose more so than the later more vertical version.

 

Simon

Originally Posted by Simon Winter:
Originally Posted by Zephyr:

As much as I like the look of the "modern" E unit in

it's latest incarnation, I've always wondered why EMD

eliminated the slant /shovel nose design in favor for

the F unit bulldog nose.

 

Was it cheaper?  Safer (better visibility / impact)?

Or did the look simply become obsolete?

 

/Mitch

 


 

 

 

 

Safety. In collisions, things tended to travel up the slanted nose more so than the later more vertical version.

 

Simon

That would not have been of great concern back in the late 1930s. The main concerns would have been:

 

1) Ease, and standardization, of manufacture.

 

2) The ability to couple units A to A easily. Plus, still have nose doors for crew pass-through.

To show I wasn't out of my mind earlier referring to other "demonstrators" at the 50th Anniversary of the FT model in La Grange back in 1989, check this series of photos from the event and notice the pristine EMD locomotives in different models.  It was to these pristine diesels that I was referring:

 

http://flbtrain.smugmug.com/Ra...h-Birthday/i-ts7Hsgk

 

My bad for referring to these pristine locomotives available for up close viewing as "demonstrators" without confirming those facts.  And yes, I know, none of the photos in the link include any E units.   

Last edited by Pingman

 

Bob, I found the book, Jeff Wilson's E Units:  Electro-Motive's Classic Streamliners, to be exactly what I wanted:  1) where did the E units come from; and, 2) how to distinguish the various models as an interested hobbyist.  It was also interesting to see the line drawings showing the length of the E units and compare them to F unit information supplied in his book, F Units:  The Diesels That Did It.  Having had the F Unit book for many years, the E Unit book met my expectations.  Now, if color photos had been used, both books would be killer--so we suffice with B&W photos.

 

Carl, it's my pleasure....be sure to let us know how you like the book.

  

Bob 

 

Originally Posted by CNJ 3676:

Here we have an A-B-B set of E2 units built in 1937 for the "City of San Francisco." Production totaled two A and four B units with the other A-B-B set built for the "City of Los Angeles." Note the nose of the SF-1 displays the heralds of the three railroads..UP, CNW and SP...which ran the train.

 

Bob

  

E2A

And as a neophyte diesel spotter, the Carl Malden proboscis is a dead giveaway that this is an E2.

Add Reply

Post

OGR Publishing, Inc., 1310 Eastside Centre Ct, Suite 6, Mountain Home, AR 72653
800-980-OGRR (6477)
www.ogaugerr.com

×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×
×