Long hood forward?

You got it ... running long hood forward is for crew protection.  Not all railroads ran their Geeps or other hood units long hood forward.  Each railroad had their own policy regarding the running direction of long hood.  Some railroads ran short hood forward because they decided doing so increased visibility for the crew.  The B&O's policy,  for example, was to run their hood units ( ALCO RS units, Baldwin AS16, Geeps, etc. ) long hood forward for the purpose of crew safety in the event of a grade crossing collision with vehicles or head end collisions with another train.  

I'm not sure about Canadian National's hood unit policy.  I'm sure others here on the forum will be able to inform you about where other railroads stood  regarding this topic.  You might even try posing your question on Google.  

I hope you enjoy your new GP9 whatever hood direction you run in.

Googling photo's of CN GP9's, it appears they were set up for long hood forward operation.  I couldn't find any "F" on the frames, but the bell was located on the end or the long hood.  It looks like some may have been reconfigured for short hood forward when the "stripes" paint scheme came into being.

Or possibly they were equipped with dual controls.  That's a question for a CN expert.

Definitely changed to short hood forward when the nose was chopped.

Rusty

CN and their affiliated railroads in the US (Grand Trunk and Central Vermont) had their GP’s set up as long hood forward.

As noted above, B&O ran theirs long hood forward too along with NYC, PRR, Erie, Reading, N&W and, I believe, DL&W.

Curt

@juniata guy posted:

CN and their affiliated railroads in the US (Grand Trunk and Central Vermont) had their GP’s set up as long hood forward.

As noted above, B&O ran theirs long hood forward too along with NYC, PRR, Erie, Reading, N&W and, I believe, DL&W.

Curt

Very interesting! So it sounds like long hood forward was more typical than short hood forward. I assume that Railroads ran this FM Trainmasters long hood forward as well.

I don't know if a majority of railroads ran their 1st generation high-short hood engines long hood forward or not, but there were quite a few of them. EMD's GP-7 demonstrators were set up to run short-hood forward, but could be ordered to run long-hood forward. Great Northern is another railroad that did, up until I believe the GP-30s arrived in the early 1960's. On the other hand, neighbor Northern Pacific ran their engines - including their Alco RS-3s - short hood forward. (Most railroads ran RS-3 engines long hood forward, even if their EMD GP-7 or GP-9s ran long hood forward.)

p.s. New York Central's Canada Southern had some Canadian built GP-7 and GP-9 engines that ran short hood forward, even though all other NYC early GPs ran long hood first.

@Madockawando posted:

Very interesting! So it sounds like long hood forward was more typical than short hood forward. I assume that Railroads ran this FM Trainmasters long hood forward as well.

Just a quick and possibly overly general observation.  Seems like long hood forward was uses mostly in the east and short hood forward in the mid-west and west.

Wabash, NKP, CB&Q, IC, UP, SP, NP, MP, AT&SF, Milwaukee, C&NW and others ran GP's and SD's short hood forward.  As did Seaboard, FEC and ACL in the "east."

Rusty

I would think that the crew would prefer  the better visual range of short hood forward rather than the "protection" of long hood forward.  Given the violence and momentum of a railroad collision, I have a had time seeing how the long hood really gives you significantly better protection.

@Madockawando posted:

I would think that the crew would prefer  the better visual range of short hood forward rather than the "protection" of long hood forward.  Given the violence and momentum of a railroad collision, I have a had time seeing how the long hood really gives you significantly better protection.

While the short hood may only have a spot for sand and maybe a toilet, the longhood has that really big and heavy prime mover to stop anything...

@Madockawando posted:

Very interesting! So it sounds like long hood forward was more typical than short hood forward.

It depended on the railroads individual preference, back in the "early diesel" era of GP/SD7 and GP/SD9 models.

I assume that Railroads ran this FM Trainmasters long hood forward as well.

First, the correct model name for that FM unit is, Train Master". The term "Trainmaster" was for a supervisory position on most railroad, back in the "old days". Second, it depended on the individual railroad whether the designated their Train Masters long hood forward or not.

Some additional facts concerning EMD GP and SD models relative to "long hood" front:

1) From a design and manufacturing standpoint, ALL EMD GP and SD locomotive modes have the "short hood" end (cab end) as the #1 end (front). All electrical wiring diagrams show the #1 traction at the "short hood" (cab) end, regardless of how a customer desires their operating front to be designated.

2) EMD would place the Federally mandated letter "F", at either end of the locomotive, with the Engineer's control stand arranged accordingly, as specified by the customer. That said, the #1 traction motor was STILL at the "short hood" (#1) end of the unit!

3) Even well into the SD40 (and SD50) era, the N&W (later NS) and Southern Railway were STILL purchasing EMD units with a high "short hood", and "Loog hood" designated as the front (at substantial extra cost), with the Engineer's controls re-arranged accordingly.

@Lehigh Valley Railroad posted:

While the short hood may only have a spot for sand and maybe a toilet, the longhood has that really big and heavy prime mover to stop anything...

Well, to each his own. Having had to visit quite a number of railroad wrecks, as an estimator out of the EMD Sales Engineering Dept. in the 1970s, I can tell you that I sure didn't like seeing the massive prime mover & main generator pushed into/through the operating cab, when running long hood forward.

@Madockawando posted:

I would think that the crew would prefer  the better visual range of short hood forward rather than the "protection" of long hood forward.  Given the violence and momentum of a railroad collision, I have a had time seeing how the long hood really gives you significantly better protection.

You are obviously a considerate person.  However in the early diesel era, what the crew preferred did not matter at all.  The decision to specify front end orientation of road-switcher locomotives was a strictly management decision in the iron pants era of the 1950's, and the Mechanical Department did not care what Engineers liked and did not like.  Possibly, the General Committee of the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers made a recommendation on a specific railroad, but the normal reaction of a 1950's Mechanical Department would have been to thank the B of L E for its interest, and then do what it wanted to do.  The same people who only begrudgingly provided a toilet and cold drinking water made the decision about hood orientation.

The same is true of the specified air brake equipment.  If management viewed road-switchers as best suited for local freight and yard service, the engines were equipped with the standard 6-BL air brake schedule, almost identical to that on the steam engines these units replaced.  On the other hand, on lines which viewed road switchers as road engines that could also be used in the yard, the units were generally equipped with optional 24-RL air brake schedule, which matched the postwar cab and booster diesel units.  With all of the specifications, the railroad Mechanical Department  made its choice and paid its money.

Around 1960, an Engineer and a Fireman perished aboard an Erie long-hood-forward GP7, in a head-on collision between two passenger trains, the opposing train having an Alco-GE PA1.  The PA overrode the front platform of the GP7 and shoved the entire hood and cab backward, and the first passenger car shoved the short hood (with the steam generator in operation) into the cab.  I don't think that there is statistical evidence of hood orientation actually making a substantial difference in overall crew safety, but various railroad Mechanical Departments  -- some of which believed that long-hood-forward was safer -- sometimes chose to depart from the standard specifications.  Union Pacific ordered long-hood-forward GP7's and SD7's in 1953, then flip-flopped in 1954 and ordered large numbers of short-hood-forward GP9's.

Norfolk & Western famously ordered dual controls on its high short hood units, specifying the long hood as the front, but we have been told by Big Jim (a retired N&W and NS Locomotive Engineer who posts here) that, in practice, the railroad sent the engines out with the short hood leading much of the time.

To the Engineer, the trip pays the same, regardless of which hood is leading.  

@Hot Water posted:

Well, to each his own. Having had to visit quite a number of railroad wrecks, as an estimator out of the EMD Sales Engineering Dept. in the 1970s, I can tell you that I sure didn't like seeing the massive prime mover & main generator pushed into/through the operating cab, when running long hood forward.

I have difficulty imagining a better scenario with the short hood forward.  I think running into anything as large as another train is going to be bad news for the guys in the lead engine no matter which way the cab faces!

@gunrunnerjohn posted:

I have difficulty imagining a better scenario with the short hood forward.  I think running into anything as large as another train is going to be bad news for the guys in the lead engine no matter which way the cab faces!

That’s kind of the way I am thinking as well.

@gunrunnerjohn posted:

I have difficulty imagining a better scenario with the short hood forward.  I think running into anything as large as another train is going to be bad news for the guys in the lead engine no matter which way the cab faces!

Unlike the long hood end of any GP or SD type of EMD locomotive, the short hood (cab) end has all sorts of VERY high strength structure inside the nose. From the anti-climber, which is built into the front endplate structure, to the massive steel supports behind the front short hood, the cab itself is surprisingly pretty well protected. The FRA began mandating front nose collision "protection" back in the late 1970s, and now with the current full width front nose design, it is unbelievable how much force the current front ends of diesels will withstand and deflect.

The only time that I was involved in a grade crossing accident I was glad that we were running long hood forward (low short hood trailing). We hit a eighteen wheel flatbed truck loaded with lumber.  The collision broke the main air line and wood was stacked on the running boards even on the second unit.

I never had a problem running long hood forward, especially over road crossings where gas truck frequented!

For fun I ran an RS-3 up in Ely Nevada both ways, I can tell you it sure is a lot easier to see the track ahead with the short nose forward.  There were some unprotected grade crossings that some yahoo in a car had to run through just as I was pulling the engine through the crossing, scared the crap out of me, no way I could stop in time, didn't try, just laid on the horn.  I think he thought I knew what I was doing.

Chris S.

@FireOne posted:

For fun I ran an RS-3 up in Ely Nevada both ways, I can tell you it sure is a lot easier to see the track ahead with the short nose forward.

Chris S.

You ought see what you can't see with a boiler in front of you...

Rusty

@Rusty Traque posted:

You ought see what you can't see with a boiler in front of you...

Rusty

Did that too on the same weekend, ran sooty coal fired steamer uphill through a tunnel, I asked the Fireman "what do I do, I can't see", he said, we're on rails, where do you think we are going to go.  In an instant, I felt really stupid.

Chris S.

@Number 90 posted:

You are obviously a considerate person.  However in the early diesel era, what the crew preferred did not matter at all.  The decision to specify front end orientation of road-switcher locomotives was a strictly management decision in the iron pants era of the 1950's,. . .

Tom,  You may have noticed that I "like" a lot of your posts and this one gives me a great opportunity to tell you why.

I appreciate that you, an experienced railroader, take the time to make these well thought out and easily understood answers.  Not overly wordy as some posts sometimes are; not short, choppy or condescending as some of the replies by other "experienced" railroaders tend to be; not pedantic or irritatingly unreadable in the use of terminology or demands of exactitude from others - simply well stated, informative and easy to read.

Persons like myself who have a limited amount of true (or no) railroad experience (mine came during high school while volunteering at a railroad museum) can't be expected to either know or understand the breadth of practical operational experience someone like you has and I appreciate that you take the time, apparently so willingly, to share it with the rest of us in a pleasant and educational manner.

If it hasn't plainly been stated by others, let me take this opportunity on behalf of anyone else who has appreciated it as I have, to say "Thank you!"

Wonder what SoPac cab personnel thought about approaching grade crossings in cab-forwards, vs. boiler in front steamers?  Cornfield meets were obviously unwelcome.

To be honest,  through our my years as a toy train guy I have paid much attention to real trains, until now. This thread has been interesting and informative and I appreciate everyone weighing in on the topic.

Thanks!

@Byrdie posted:

Tom,  

I appreciate that you, an experienced railroader, take the time to make these well thought out and easily understood answers.

If it hasn't plainly been stated by others, let me take this opportunity on behalf of anyone else who has appreciated it as I have, to say "Thank you!"

That's very kind of you, Byrdie.  Thanks.  Railroading is fascinating, and it is also peculiar and quirky sometimes.  I am glad that I can periodically pull back the curtain a little bit.

I've wondered how much it had to do with how the engine was used? In GPs and SDs, the short high hood was where the boiler and water supply for passenger train service was built. New York Central and Great Northern made fairly extensive use of passenger GPs, and both operated them long-hood forward. Maybe it was thought having the boiler closer to the passenger cars was better?

It was my impression that the Pennsylvania Railroad ran long hood forward as a general rule.

George

How does the protection of an early GP or SD compare with an E or F cab unit?

CNJ had dual control stands on their hood locomotives and could be found running either long hood or short hood forward.  Being a commuter road, not turning locomotives had a lot of operational advantages for the various routes out of Jersey City.  Those GP40Ps with the flat long hood were pretty imposing running long hood forward. 

Jonathan. most roads did not turn diesel locos anyway . the F on the sill was needed by crew members to give hand or radio signals to the engineer, even units with dual control had one end or the other designated as F. I never minded either way which way a unit was facing while operating. the railroads I worked on had no turning facilitys anyway.

Ya, as Tom said earlier, I don't know that there's any documentation of a railroad choosing long-hood forward for safety reasons? I suspect one of the railroad / railfan magazines speculated that was a reason years back, and it's just been repeated so often it's accepted as fact. For most railroads, their first diesels were end-cab switchers, run with cab in the rear like a steam switcher. Could be when road switchers came along some railroads just decided to keep running them with the cab towards the rear too, since that's the way they had done it before?

A REMINDER:  Don't post photos of toy trains in this forum!  Also, don't post photos that you have gotten from the internet, books, etc. UNLESS you took them directly OR have written permission to use them.  You can post a link to the photo if you aren't the photographer.  If you choose to post a photo, you must indicate if you took the photo and if you have permission from the photographer, you must provide a copy of that written permission to OGR.

@Choo Choo Charlie posted:

Some advantages of short hood forward are:  better forward observation by engineer, more diesel engine noise, fumes and heat are behind engineer,

Depending in the speed and and the wind direction, you would be surprised how much diesel exhaust gets into the cab.

Advantages of long hood forward are:  more steel with diesel engines, generators and distance of engine in front of engineer, safer in head on collision

Sorry, but as a toy train guy you have no idea what you are talking about.

Others have said GPs run by MP had the short hood forward.  The GP-20 was built to have better forward vision for the engineer with the short hood forward.

First, the correct model designation was GP20, i.e. no dash in the model designation. Second, ALL EMD GP & SD type locomotives were designed and manufactured with the #1 truck & #1 traction motor counted from under the short hood/cab end. EMD would mount the letter "F" on either end the customer specified, but there was an extra charge for relocating the cab controls (or the addition of dual controls) for long hood forward.

  The MP GP 20 had an eagle flying forward on each side of the loco when running with the short hood forward.

Charlie

Unless it had dual controls, wouldn't running an engine ID'd with the front as the short hood, with long hood forward put the controls on the left side of the cab and the engineer can't see his signals fully?

@CALNNC posted:

Unless it had dual controls, wouldn't running an engine ID'd with the front as the short hood, with long hood forward put the controls on the left side of the cab and the engineer can't see his signals fully?

But the Fireman/Brakeman on the other side of the cab could, just like the steam locomotives of a previous era.

@Madockawando posted:

I would think that the crew would prefer  the better visual range of short hood forward rather than the "protection" of long hood forward.  Given the violence and momentum of a railroad collision, I have a had time seeing how the long hood really gives you significantly better protection.

The long-hood forward did offer more protection at road crossings , but made it more difficult to see the signals.

I can remember some of the old-heads telling me that the steam era Engineers would fuss ( at least those with the N&W ) when boarding a train that was dual control stand , but turned short hood lead.

I have run trains both ways , especially those ordered by the Southern that was short hood ( high hood ) , single control stand . They were rather difficult to see the signals .

The newer cab designs are a much safer design and afford more protection designed into it .

@CALNNC posted:

Unless it had dual controls, wouldn't running an engine ID'd with the front as the short hood, with long hood forward put the controls on the left side of the cab and the engineer can't see his signals fully?

When units were constructed with the long hood specified as the front, but with only one control stand, the cab layout was reversed, placing the control stand and brake valves on the opposite side of the cab, so that the Engineer still sat on the right hand side of the locomotive when operating it with the designated front end leading.  

Even the low-nose, long hood forward, NS units with single control stand were oriented so that the Engineer sat to the right.  On those particular locomotives, however, there as a feature I have never seen elsewhere: two speed indicators.  There was a speed indicator in front of the Engineer for long hood forward movement, and another one behind him for short hood movement.  Also,  the control stand on those locomotives was not angled as it normally is.  Instead, it was turned to be in line with the front-to-back wall of the cab, so that an Engineer could easily use it in either direction, adding some cost for custom features, but not nearly as much as dual controls.

@Number 90 posted:

When units were constructed with the long hood specified as the front, but with only one control stand, the cab layout was reversed, placing the control stand and brake valves on the opposite side of the cab, so that the Engineer still sat on the right hand side of the locomotive when operating it with the designated front end leading.  

Even the low-nose, long hood forward, NS units with single control stand were oriented so that the Engineer sat to the right.  On those particular locomotives, however, there as a feature I have never seen elsewhere: two speed indicators.  There was a speed indicator in front of the Engineer for long hood forward movement, and another one behind him for short hood movement.  Also,  the control stand on those locomotives was not angled as it normally is.  Instead, it was turned to be in line with the front-to-back wall of the cab, so that an Engineer could easily use it in either direction, adding some cost for custom features, but not nearly as much as dual controls.

And when they finally started to do away with the "bar stool" seats to the so-called improved ones with the armrests , I couldn't tell you who many fingers I smashed or arguments I had with a chair !

I briefly ran a gp7 in tourist service that was high short hood.  We usually ran short hood forward but that was only the luck of the draw from delivery since we had no place to turn it anyway.  I thought the view was okay but not certainly not great, and the only way to do grade crossing was either with a someone in the fireman's seat or a crew member flagging the crossing. 

We later got a Gp11, low short hood. The view out the front was great!  The biggest issue was It came with a speedometer, and that I was foolish enough to believe it worked.  When I picked up the engine from the delivery yard to take to our usual storage area, as I started approaching the track rated speed limit based on the cab speedometer, the loco was rocking side to side so bad I was honestly worried it was going to tip over!  My conductor/fireman wasn't thrilled either.  I cut speed and braked gently til it settled down, and promptly went back to judging my speed by how fast the trees went past the window on the opposite side of the cab .

So IRL, if I understand correctly, a road switcher, doing both yard switching, and road assignments, would receive dual control stands, and a road switcher, doing road trains, would get a single control stand?

@Mark V. Spadaro posted:

So IRL, if I understand correctly, a road switcher, doing both yard switching, and road assignments, would receive dual control stands, and a road switcher, doing road trains, would get a single control stand?

Not necessarily. It all depended on what the specific customer ordered on any given group of units. Some customers order ALL the GP units with dual control stands, while other customers only order a small number of dual control stand units, while the remainder were all single control stands (relocated within the cab, for long hood forward operation).