Good Day,
These rebuilds for Canadian Pacific GP20C-ECO's look fantastic! CP has ordered 150 rebuilds. Great news…………the Geep is recreated in the 21st Century!
Regards,
Swafford
Original Post
Replies sorted oldest to newest
Needs number boards and marker lights all around, and a high hood ! Well, at least it's not a wide ride!
What is the prime mover? Must be a cost saver for Hunter Harrison to order!
Good Day,
Power for the CP GP20C-ECO locomotives will be EMD’s 8-710G3B ECO engine producing 2,000 hp.
I’d like to see BNSF order these.
Regards,
Swafford
Wish Hunter would put beavers on the CP units!
Yeah they do look nice, and it is great to see them still on the road. Cost saver?...ur darn right.
Not a bad-looking engine, looks good in red.
Somewhere on YouTube is a video of an earlier demonstrator version idling... that 8-710 sounds strange!
EDIT: here it is...
Not bad looking; but, it's kind of odd that rebuilds, nowadays, can still use conventional cabs.
I thought that Canadian cabs/North American safety cabs offered better crew protection, with their massive impact beams and wide design, that helps to prevent the short hood from being driven into the crew's quarters, in a head-on collision.
Being on the receiving end, after a significant direct hit, to a conventional cabs short hood, probably would be catastrophic, for any unlucky crew members.
Seems like saving some money trumps crew safety. I find it, somewhat, odd that environmental regulations govern the type of prime mover etc., that must be used; but, current safety regulations don't mandate that safety cabs must be installed, on major rebuilds; essentially, they're new units.
Rick
From what I understand, these newer "conventional" cabs are indeed built to higher crashworthiness standards than the ones they replaced. They have reinforced nose structures, energy absorption, etc. So, they provide increased safety while still allowing visibility for switching moves (especially for a 4-axle unit such as this one). Anyone who has had to switch cars with a "wide-body" locomotive will tell you it's not fun.
Good morning, Frank. Real nice pictures. I agree, they're very sharp-looking. Where were these taken??
- Mike
NS has an interesting "Admiral Cab"....same basic look but..
They look cool to me. Like the spartan(?) cabs that were on the (NS) engines. Gives them a modern retro look???
Looks like the model builders got a new one to work on.
The fact that they are rebuilds, suggest costs factored into the 150 unit deal.
I started a thread on another real locomotive forum, re: locomotive cabs; with the intent of finding out which cab features... served the crew and railroads best.
From the responses and research I did, I came to the conclusion that the current wide cabs were superior in most ways, including safety, to the conventional cab design.
Basic physics suggest that spreading the impact force out over a broader/bigger area... would achieve better results. The relatively narrow short hood on conventional cabs, with it's sharp leading edge, actually seems like it would increase impact forces, due to it's "concentrated" narrow design; like a woman's high heeled shoe would, over a broader heeled shoe.
If savings is a key factor, re: rebuild projects; especially, a fairly large 150 unit project, like this one; I can't see limited financial resources being spent to upgrade an inferior design, when the industry, as a whole, has adopted the newer wide bodied design, as their product of choice.
I don't recall seeing anywhere, in the current railroading world, another modern railroad using a cab style, that is similar to a conventional cab. Some form of wide cab, seems to be the accepted design.
If they are 6 axle units... rated at 2000hp, I wonder what CP has in store for these rebuilds?
Rick
Trains had a great article about these I think in the latest issue. Good to see 4 axle power is still relevant among the excitement with the big 6-axle diesels. Those are fantastic looking units!
Until I read Chessie's post, I assumed the C designated a 6 axle unit; not a conventional cab.
Never bothered to actually count the wheels.
Four axles, eh; be interesting to hear what's in store fore these units?
Rick
Originally Posted by Dominic Mazoch:
Wish Hunter would put beavers on the CP units!
Totally agree with that. I thought the CP was doing that more. The engines need a nod to their heritage, and it would dress them up as well.
Originally Posted by Rick B.:
Not bad looking; but, it's kind of odd that rebuilds, nowadays, can still use conventional cabs.
I thought that Canadian cabs/North American safety cabs offered better crew protection, with their massive impact beams and wide design, that helps to prevent the short hood from being driven into the crew's quarters, in a head-on collision.
Being on the receiving end, after a significant direct hit, to a conventional cabs short hood, probably would be catastrophic, for any unlucky crew members.
Seems like saving some money trumps crew safety. I find it, somewhat, odd that environmental regulations govern the type of prime mover etc., that must be used; but, current safety regulations don't mandate that safety cabs must be installed, on major rebuilds; essentially, they're new units.
Rick
Take a look at any Genset. They all have narrow short hoods.
As Hot Water mentioned in another thread, all new and rebuilt locomotives have to conform to current AAR/FRA collision standards.
Every collision is different and no front end configuration will protect the crew in every possible collision scenario.
Rusty
Frank, Thanks for posting the pics. They are very good looking units. Essentially 'modern GP-38s'
Rusty,
Gensets are switchers, and, probably, weren't intended for notch 8 work, at higher mainline speeds.
BTW, it is my understanding that Canadian Nation went to their in-the-field employees, soliciting their experienced opinions, when the, at the time, new Canadian cab was being developed. Their professional train crews responses lead to a wider, safer, more comfortable cab design.
For a financially accountable, class one to rethink a major, and likely costly, design component, like the cab, there must have been significant justification...
The Americans followed that lead, with new wide cabs of their own... the North American Safety cab.
Rick
Originally Posted by Rick B.:
Rusty,
Gensets are switchers, and, probably, weren't intended for notch 8 work, at higher mainline speeds.
BTW, it is my understanding that Canadian Nation went to their in-the-field employees, soliciting their experienced opinions, when the, at the time, new Canadian cab was being developed. Their professional train crews responses lead to a wider, safer, more comfortable cab design.
For a financially accountable, class one to rethink a major, and likely costly, design component, like the cab, there must have been significant justification...
The Americans followed that lead, with new wide cabs of their own... the North American Safety cab.
Rick
Lets try to get this correct! The CABS are NO WIDER than any other diesel unit!
Also, the so called "Canadian Comfort Cab" with its "desk top controller" wound up being a TOTAL DISASTER here in the U.S.! Why, because when the various U.S. railroads tested it, all the "wows", "gee whizzes", and subsequent "approvals" and "raves" from the Unions, all came from people who did NOT actually operate locomotives for a living. The approvers where all "arm chair" union executives and railroad mechanical department managers. Thus, EMD Engineering Dept. was FORCED to design and manufacture a truly uncomfortable working environment for the Locomotive Engineer. For example, have YOU ever sat at your diner table for 11 1/2 hours without even being able to put your feet up?
Clearer heads eventually prevailed, after MANY years of complaints from REAL Locomotive Engineers, and the "desk top controller" design was thrown out, and today's modern cabs are pretty much like the Engineer's position in the Union Pacific DDA40X units of 1969. Imagine THAT!
Hot,
The leading surface/edge on both of the domestic wide cab models, is different. Even slight differences will affect the impact results: plus, internal support mechanisms...
Re: current wide cabs vs. conventional; the wide cab prevails... simply put, a wider impact surface, with the appropriate internal support/safety features - should absorb a crash better.
Rick
Thanks for posting Frank, they look sensational. I'd love these on the layout! Maybe WBB might do them on their GP30's sometime.
Originally Posted by Rick B.:
Hot,
The leading surface/edge on both of the domestic wide cab models, is different. Even slight differences will affect the impact results: plus, internal support mechanisms...
Re: current wide cabs vs. conventional; the wide cab prevails... simply put, a wider impact surface, with the appropriate internal support/safety features - should absorb a crash better.
Rick
What part of THE CABS ARE NOT WIDER, don't you understand????????
The NOSE is wider, but the CAB is NOT WIDER!
To me, the leading edge, the nose, the face... whatever ya want to call it, is part of the cab.
When the crash's impact reaches that leading area, and the shape of that leading area... it will most definitely have a significant effect.
Rick
Originally Posted by Rick B.:
To me, the leading edge, the nose, the face... whatever ya want to call it, is part of the cab.
Rick
There in lies the problem. You are neither a locomotive manufacturer nor a railroad employee, thus you don't understand the difference between the "nose" and the "cab".
Originally Posted by Rick B.:
To me, the leading edge, the nose, the face... whatever ya want to call it, is part of the cab.
Rick
Methinks it would be wise to listen to the man who worked for EMD!
Rusty
There's the problem, Rusty, old Hot is an EMD guy.
GE, the North American sales leader, builds their domestic freight locomotives in modules; the "main cab" comprises that whole module; including, Hot's so-called "nose".
There ya go, Hot, I've schooled you on GE cabs.
Rick
Originally Posted by Rick B.:
There's the problem, Rusty, old Hot is an EMD guy.
GE, the North American sales leader, builds their domestic freight locomotives in modules; the "main cab" comprises that whole module; including, Hot's so-called "nose".
There ya go, Hot, I've schooled you on GE cabs.
Rick
Interesting come back, but...............ya still don't know what your talkin' about!
Originally Posted by Hot Water:
Originally Posted by Rick B.:
There's the problem, Rusty, old Hot is an EMD guy.
GE, the North American sales leader, builds their domestic freight locomotives in modules; the "main cab" comprises that whole module; including, Hot's so-called "nose".
There ya go, Hot, I've schooled you on GE cabs.
Rick
Interesting come back, but...............ya still don't know what your talkin' about!
Guys...guys. let's all take a deep breath...I'm trying to learn something! 
I just pulled this off Wikipedia as it pertains to EMD:
"The Canadian comfort cab or wide cab is a broad-nosed cab design found on modern diesel locomotives. It occupies the entire width of the locomotive, and typically has an access door on the front of the nose. The term wide cab is somewhat of a misnomer because it is the nose, not the cab, that is widened."
I'm not taking sides, but for my edification...it sounds like CAB doesn't include the nose. (I think Hot was making this point). Rick...I guess is saying GE includes the nose. So there is no "standard" as to what constitutes cab? Round 3...box....
Well, I'm not about to cut my cab off to spite my face!
Rusty
Originally Posted by ChessieMD:
I just pulled this off Wikipedia as it pertains to EMD:
Wikipedia doesn't always get things correct either. In the beginning, the term was the Canadian "Comfort Cab". In the motive power industry, EMD simply did NOT refer to the darned thing as a "wide cab". I have no idea what GE may have referred to their "front end arrangement".
Chessie,
GE's does count the nose as part of it's "Main Cab" module; the AUX Cab(auxiliary cab) module sits directly behind main cab; followed by the Engine Cab and, at the rear, the "RAD Cab"(radiator cab). These separate cab modules are installed on the locomotive platform.
Rick
Originally Posted by Rick B.:
Chessie,
GE's does count the nose as part of it's "Main Cab" module; the AUX Cab(auxiliary cab) module sits directly behind main cab; followed by the Engine Cab and, at the rear, the "RAD Cab"(radiator cab). These separate cab modules are installed on the locomotive platform.
Rick
Rick,
Many thanks to you and Hot for your insights. Learning something new each and every day!
You're welcome, Chessie.
Rick
If you want real crew protection, go long nose forward! Not enough vis??? Use the
CRP T/I Closed circuit TV system, with it's four screen in one option. Wide nose/ wide cab...whatever, is a joke!
Originally Posted by jaygee:
If you want real crew protection, go long nose forward! Not enough vis??? Use the
CRP T/I Closed circuit TV system, with it's four screen in one option. Wide nose/ wide cab...whatever, is a joke!
Well, that is way to loose a quick $10 million. If a railroad company operates long hood forward and said railroad company gets in to a wreck; said company is liable for damages. This has been settled in court. Railroad company operated long hood forward. Railroad company hit a vehicle that cost lives. Lawyer was able to show that long hood forward impaired vision. Jury returns multi-million judgement against railroad. Appeals ultimately denied. Hence no more long hood forward and no more high nose.
I am just the messenger here; don't blame me if you don't like it.
Originally Posted by Hot Water:
Originally Posted by Rick B.:
Hot,
The leading surface/edge on both of the domestic wide cab models, is different. Even slight differences will affect the impact results: plus, internal support mechanisms...
Re: current wide cabs vs. conventional; the wide cab prevails... simply put, a wider impact surface, with the appropriate internal support/safety features - should absorb a crash better.
Rick
What part of THE CABS ARE NOT WIDER, don't you understand????????
The NOSE is wider, but the CAB is NOT WIDER!
I remember this discussion in X2200S. They said if the CAB was WIDE, they could not be able to operate in the current "loading gauge", and only the NOSE was WIDE.
Originally Posted by Hot Water:
Originally Posted by Rick B.:
Rusty,
Gensets are switchers, and, probably, weren't intended for notch 8 work, at higher mainline speeds.
BTW, it is my understanding that Canadian Nation went to their in-the-field employees, soliciting their experienced opinions, when the, at the time, new Canadian cab was being developed. Their professional train crews responses lead to a wider, safer, more comfortable cab design.
For a financially accountable, class one to rethink a major, and likely costly, design component, like the cab, there must have been significant justification...
The Americans followed that lead, with new wide cabs of their own... the North American Safety cab.
Rick
Lets try to get this correct! The CABS are NO WIDER than any other diesel unit!
Also, the so called "Canadian Comfort Cab" with its "desk top controller" wound up being a TOTAL DISASTER here in the U.S.! Why, because when the various U.S. railroads tested it, all the "wows", "gee whizzes", and subsequent "approvals" and "raves" from the Unions, all came from people who did NOT actually operate locomotives for a living. The approvers where all "arm chair" union executives and railroad mechanical department managers. Thus, EMD Engineering Dept. was FORCED to design and manufacture a truly uncomfortable working environment for the Locomotive Engineer. For example, have YOU ever sat at your diner table for 11 1/2 hours without even being able to put your feet up?
Clearer heads eventually prevailed, after MANY years of complaints from REAL Locomotive Engineers, and the "desk top controller" design was thrown out, and today's modern cabs are pretty much like the Engineer's position in the Union Pacific DDA40X units of 1969. Imagine THAT!
What you get when you get people who don't use an item design it!
Since steam power is essentially running long hood forward, except for a cab-forward, then it's only logical that steam, like big 4-8-4s and 2-6-6-4s will never be running again. I'm NOT buying the lawyer/politician stuff about long hoods...if such a descision was ever made, there was lot more to it. OTOH, IF we the people actually grew a pair and stood up to these PC types, we could shove them head first into a tree chipper and use the remains for fertilizer....just like our founding fathers intended! Selah!
