I am looking to pair my Wabash F-3s with passenger cars. Would they have pulled heavy weights?
Original Post
Replies sorted oldest to newest
Yes...heavyweights lasted well into the diesel era.....cheers....joe
@joe krasko posted:Yes...heavyweights lasted well into the diesel era.....cheers....joe
Thanks Joe!
If you want to be more accurate, the other question is did Wabash have any F3s set up for passenger service. Most railroads only used them for freight. The gearing was lower for freight (slower speeds but more pulling power) and they did not generally order them with Steam generators to heat passenger cars.
The Santa Fe was a major exception. they had a lot of various F units in passenger service. The PRR definitely did not use Fs in passenger service. I don't think NYC or B&O used Fs in passenger either but I don't know for sure. I don't know about the Wabash.
An even funkier application was the N&W who bought some GP9s set up for passenger service, I think.
However, when it is all said and done, it is your Model Railroad, whatever you do applies.
@prrjim posted:If you want to be more accurate, the other question is did Wabash have any F3s set up for passenger service. Most railroads only used them for freight. The gearing was lower for freight (slower speeds but more pulling power) and they did not generally order them with Steam generators to heat passenger cars.
The Santa Fe was a major exception. they had a lot of various F units in passenger service. The PRR definitely did not use Fs in passenger service. I don't think NYC or B&O used Fs in passenger either but I don't know for sure. I don't know about the Wabash.
An even funkier application was the N&W who bought some GP9s set up for passenger service, I think.
Correct. They were the 500 series GP9s with dynamic brake and steam generators in the short hood. They were also painted in the N&W's red passenger scheme, referred to as the "Red Birds".
However, when it is all said and done, it is your Model Railroad, whatever you do applies.
@pennsyfan posted:I am looking to pair my Wabash F-3s with passenger cars. Would they have pulled heavy weights?
Heavyweights lasted all the way into the modern era, heavyweights on the Penn Central would be pressed into service when traffic demanded it. It was not uncommon during the holidays for heavyweight cars to be added to the back of extras. More than once I had a speed restriction on my GG 1 because we had heavyweights in the back.
@rplst8 posted:The PRR did use FPs in passenger service, didn't they?
Not familiar with FPs did you mean PAs?
Yes the PRR bought about 30 FP7s. These were geared for dual service and were aimed at secondary trains and backups. I have seen photos of them on passenger trains. Most were painted the standard Dark Green Locomotive Enamel. They differed from the F7 paint in that they had 5 pin stripes instead of one big stripe. most records show that 2 A-B-A sets were delivered in the passenger tuscan red scheme. They were 4 feet longer than the F7 to allow room for the steam generator. When delivered to most or all RRs that bought them, they had a large round tank in front of the fuel tank which was distinctive. When downgraded to freight only service they lost those tanks, so I assume they were to carry water for the steam generator for passenger car heat.
Bob, EMD built both FP7s and FP9s which look just like an F7 or F9 and are on 2 axle trucks. The big and noticeable difference is they are longer.
A fair number of railroads bought GP7 or GP9s with steam generators for use in passenger service, often on branchlines or in commuter service. New York Central, Soo Line, C&NW for example. The Missabe had two passenger SD-9s.
BTW Soo Line never bought streamlined cars, they used heavyweights until the end of their passenger trains in the 1960s.
Can't speak to the Wabash, but the B&O definitely had passenger F-3s. They were purchased to haul the new 1949 Columbian (which was lightweight train)
Heavyweight cars dominated B&O passenger service, although many were given streamlined bodies at the company shops over the years.
In 1952, for example, the vast majority of the passenger fleet were heavyweights, and only a small minority of those had been streamstyled. Sleepers and diners were the cars first streamstyled, but in 1952 the majority were still traditional heavyweights. Leaving out the Columbian and the Cincinnatian, all RPO, Baggage, Express, Combination, Coaches, and Cafe-parlors were heavyweights.
@prrjim posted:If you want to be more accurate, the other question is did Wabash have any F3s set up for passenger service. Most railroads only used them for freight.
The Santa Fe was a major exception. they had a lot of various F units in passenger service. The PRR definitely did not use Fs in passenger service. I don't think NYC or B&O used Fs in passenger either but I don't know for sure.
B&O did use some F3s on passenger service. Besides Santa Fe, quite a few other roads did also. (CB&Q, WP, NP, UP, GM&O, Ill. Central, among others)
@prrjim posted:Yes the PRR bought about 30 FP7s. These were geared for dual service and were aimed at secondary trains and backups. I have seen photos of them on passenger trains. Most were painted the standard Dark Green Locomotive Enamel. They differed from the F7 paint in that they had 5 pin stripes instead of one big stripe. most records show that 2 A-B-A sets were delivered in the passenger tuscan red scheme. They were 4 feet longer than the F7 to allow room for the steam generator. When delivered to most or all RRs that bought them, they had a large round tank in front of the fuel tank which was distinctive. When downgraded to freight only service they lost those tanks, so I assume they were to carry water for the steam generator for passenger car heat.
Bob, EMD built both FP7s and FP9s which look just like an F7 or F9 and are on 2 axle trucks. The big and noticeable difference is they are longer.
Thank you for clarifying and excuse my ignorance.
@breezinup posted:B&O did use some F3s on passenger service. Besides Santa Fe, quite a few other roads did also. (CB&Q, WP, NP, UP, GM&O, Ill. Central, among others)
Careful, i.e. CB&Q. The CB&Q did indeed purchase A-B-A set of F3s for proposed use on the California Zephyr trains, in conjunction with D&RGW and Western Pacific. However, once delivered, and CB&Q management discovered that "their units" would NOT be "running through", the quickly additional EMD E units, and relegated those F3s to freight service (never to see a passenger train again).
Thus, motive power for the famous California Zephyr, was CB&Q E Units, D&RGW F Units, and Western Pacific F Units.
Bob,
No need to apologize. We all collect trivia knowledge. I have been learning about PRR stuff for about 40 years, so I have a lot of facts about that road at hand. On the other hand, I don't know nearly as much about other roads as evidenced by the long list of roads that ordered Fs for passenger service that I was totally unaware of.
They are F3 locomotives, not F-3. No dashes in EMD models, other than the “Dash 2” series, as in SD40-2.
Rich Melvin, I regret my error. As Editor of the B&ORRHS Sentinel, I routinely remove hyphens from EMD models in authors' manuscripts. Unfortunately, I referred to a publication that had the hyphen in it, and slipped up. B&O hyphenated its classes. I believe F3 were DF-3, DF-4, and DP-5. That may have also contributed to my error. Thanks for the correction.
The Lackawanna (DL&W) used F units for passenger service: F3, F7. For quite some time until the E8 units arrived on the property.
They also had a separate roster of F units for freight service. Beginning with the FT.
The New York Central bought four F3As in 1947 that were used in passenger service numbered 3500-3503. I believe they were painted in the same color gray as the NYC passenger E units. They also had two F Unit Bs numbered 3600-3601. All other NYC F units were painted black with the lightning stripe and used for freight. Later on all these passenger locomotives were re-assigned to freight service except 3502 which was scrapped.
Heavyweight cars remained in long distance service until April 30, 1971.
Louisville & Nashville heavyweight diner 2726, preserved at the Illinois Railway Museum, was on one of the L & N's last trains on April 30, 1971.
Canadian Pacific didn't purchase any F7 or F9 A units, only FP7 and FP9. Their reasoning was that while not all of them were delivered with boilers and water tanks, they could be easily converted to passenger service if necessary.
Stuart
Bob -- pennsyfan -- to answer your question, yes, there were a lot of heavyweight passenger cars during 1946-1949, when F3 diesels were in production.
In the case of the Wabash, almost every passenger train of theirs contained a mix of heavyweight and lightweight cars. There was one lightweight train bought in 1947 and another in 1950, but their other trains were mainly heavyweight cars and the two streamliners soon started carrying heavyweight baggage cars. Trains like the Wabash Cannonball used heavyweight cars until some of the 1947 lightweights got put into general use. They painted their heavyweight cars dark blue. Wabash handled Union Pacific's City of St. Louis (with Wabash locomotives) between Kansas City and St. Louis, and that train was painted yellow and grey.
I rode a heavyweight Wabash parlor observation car in 1967 on the Blue Bird (although by then it was Norfolk & Western.
The Wabash E7 and E8 passenger locomotives, as well as the Alco PA1's, were painted in the same blue-grey-white as the freight units. The Wabash had enough E units, so they did not have to use F units on passenger trains, but your F3's on your trains would look fine to all but the pickiest visitors.
While the OP's original question has been thoroughly answered, the existence of heavyweight cars well into the diesel era fascinates me. In many areas, they lasted quite a long time. On the Jersey shore, steel CNJ coaches and PRR P70 steel coaches lasted in service as late as 1983 in commuter service. Although most trains utilized 2nd and 3rd hand streamlined cars for service, the older cars could still be found in mixed trains.
A lot of the heavyweight cars served well into the 1970's in Mexico too. Various Pullman Standard cars traded "Pullman" for "Dormitorio" in the small letterboards at the car ends.
Penn Central's use of heavyweight cars is well documented, but Amtrak also continued to use a few heavyweight cars later on. Some former PRR B60Bs received Phase III paint and a heavyweight Southern Pacific open end observation got Amtrak paint and was used as an inspection car on the rear of the Coast Starlight at times as I recall.
Finally, many secondary passenger trains retained a mixture of streamlined and heavyweight cars for many years. These are some of my favorite to model specifically because they don't match. As always, if prototype accuracy is important to you, it pays to do your research. In some cases, I am just happy with an approximation of the actual train and other times I want it to match. The enjoyment of tracking down a specific car is part of the fun of this hobby for me.
@GG1 4877 posted:While the OP's original question has been thoroughly answered, the existence of heavyweight cars well into the diesel era fascinates me. In many areas, they lasted quite a long time. On the Jersey shore, steel CNJ coaches and PRR P70 steel coaches lasted in service as late as 1983 in commuter service. Although most trains utilized 2nd and 3rd hand streamlined cars for service, the older cars could still be found in mixed trains.
A lot of the heavyweight cars served well into the 1970's in Mexico too. Various Pullman Standard cars traded "Pullman" for "Dormitorio" in the small letterboards at the car ends.
Penn Central's use of heavyweight cars is well documented, but Amtrak also continued to use a few heavyweight cars later on. Some former PRR B60Bs received Phase III paint and a heavyweight Southern Pacific open end observation got Amtrak paint and was used as an inspection car on the rear of the Coast Starlight at times as I recall.
Finally, many secondary passenger trains retained a mixture of streamlined and heavyweight cars for many years. These are some of my favorite to model specifically because they don't match. As always, if prototype accuracy is important to you, it pays to do your research. In some cases, I am just happy with an approximation of the actual train and other times I want it to match. The enjoyment of tracking down a specific car is part of the fun of this hobby for me.
Thanks for the deep dive Jonathan; very interesting.
Even some railroads that did invest in streamlined cars kept using heavyweight 'head end' cars (baggage cars, RPOs), sometimes still Pullman green and sometimes repainted to match the streamlined cars.
Also, some railroads - Great Northern for example - reworked heavyweight cars to fit in better with the new streamlined cars. Clerestory roofs were replaced with flatter streamlined-type roofs, air conditioning added, and the cars were redecorated to match the streamlined cars.
Kind of interesting - found a reference that noted that after E units came into production, F units, including F3s, most frequently handled trains (although not exclusively by any means) west of the Mississippi River...i.e. areas with significant grades and mountains. It was found that E units had too little weight on each axle and thus had problems with wheel slippage on severe grades.
I suppose a good example would be the California Zephyr. As Hot Water noted, CB&Q decided to go with E units rather than F units for their leg through the flatlands (relatively) between Chicago and Denver. For the legs from Denver to California, however, the Rio Grande and the Western Pacific used F units.
@breezinup posted:Kind of interesting - found a reference that noted that after E units came into production, F units, including F3s, most frequently handled trains (although not exclusively by any means) west of the Mississippi River...i.e. areas with significant grades and mountains. It was found that E units had too little weight on each axle and thus had problems with wheel slippage on severe grades.
Not exactly. The EMC/MD E series units only 36" diameter wheels, and thus had to have much different gear ratios than freight units with their 40" diameter wheels. With such high gear ratios, such as 55:22 (normal F Unit gear ratio was 62:15), the E unit minimum continuous speed was something around 25 to 30 MPH. Thus, they could not "lug it out" on steep grades without burning up the main generators.
Don't know where that "old rumor" about "too little weight on each axle" causing wheel slippage came from.
I suppose a good example would be the California Zephyr. As Hot Water noted, CB&Q decided to go with E units rather than F units for their leg through the flatlands (relatively) between Chicago and Denver. For the legs from Denver to California, however, the Rio Grande and the Western Pacific used F units.
@GG1 4877 posted:Finally, many secondary passenger trains retained a mixture of streamlined and heavyweight cars for many years. These are some of my favorite to model specifically because they don't match. As always, if prototype accuracy is important to you, it pays to do your research. In some cases, I am just happy with an approximation of the actual train and other times I want it to match. The enjoyment of tracking down a specific car is part of the fun of this hobby for me.
Very interesting information in your post, Jonathan. For those interested in the subject, Rob Leese's thread "CBQ and Fort Worth & Denver passenger cars" (still currently running), with his careful modelling of these trains, provides a good illustration of this mixing of heavyweights and streamlined.
The Denver Digital Library has several photos of Santa Fe Warbonnet F units pulling heavyweight cars, usually The California Limited. Note: the linked photos.
I remember (around early 1967, I think; it was just before I went in the Navy) coming back from PHL to BAL on the PRR and riding in a P-70. We trooped back to the diner for a meal. What a difference in the ride, it was New Haven heavyweight with three-axle trucks. I think that we lingered in the diner due to the ride quality until going through Union Tunnel; the stop for Baltimore was only a couple of minutes away. Oh, the dinner in the diner (fried scrod) was quite good also.
I’ve ridden (and slept) in six axle office cars. I’ll concur with Dave; they do have a much better ride quality than lighter four axle cars.
Curt
@breezinup posted:B&O did use some F3s on passenger service. Besides Santa Fe, quite a few other roads did also. (CB&Q, WP, NP, UP, GM&O, Ill. Central, among others)
I don't think Illinois Central had any F units before their merger with Gulf, Mobile and Ohio - Amtrak was in place in 1971, while the IC/GM&O merger occurred in 1972 after Amtrak's startup date. Illinois Central did have E units that pulled their passenger trains. GM&O had a Chicago commuter train that used a single F unit to pull heavyweight coaches - I don't know if any of the GM&O F units were painted into the Illinois Central Gulf orange and white paint scheme to pull the commuter coach cars.
Monon and New York, Ontario and Western used F units to pull passenger trains - NYO&W didn't have any streamlined passenger cars, while Monon had heavyweight baggage and business cars. Monon also rebuilt 6 wheel trucked surplus Army hospital cars after WW2 ended, and their Lafayette, Indiana shops modified them into streamlined trains. I'm unsure if the hospital cars were heavyweight cars as they didn't have clerestory roofs, but the 6 wheel trucks do give those cars a heavyweight appearance - perhaps the 6 wheel trucks provided a smoother ride for transporting patients.
Here's a link to a Wabash diesel roster - no steam generator equipped F units appear to have been part of Wabash's roster, a handful of Wabash GP7 and GP9s had steam generators installed; Wabash also had ALCO PA units, as well as EMD E7 and E8 diesels that pulled their premier passenger trains:
While not totally prototypically accurate, here is my mixed train being pulled by E1s. I've since added a few more streamlined cars to the consist including a dome car, a 10-6 sleeper, and another coach. Just love the look of these kinds of trains. If I were being a little more prototypical, the heavyweight coaches would have modified roofs to accommodate ice air conditioning and be labeled as "chair" cars much like the Pullman 12-1 sleeper has at the rear. Also, I would suspect that the diner would be heavyweight car in lieu of the streamlined one as those diners would likely be found on the more premeir trains.
As an aside, I'm building a similar consist for my Burlington AB E5s. It will lean heavier on the heavyweight side, but I've picked up a few dome cars and a will be getting a Slumbercoach to fill it out. Video one day when I get a chance to run that train.
Attachments
Videos (1)
This is a really great thread, thanks to all the contributors! The collective memories and technical knowledge really complement each other here. I've learned a lot tonight.
The Rio Grande passenger F units were sort of unique. The steam generators were 'stuffed' in a standard B unit and the controls were in the A unit. Later when the steam generators were worn out and not worth repairing the Grande used a pair of steam locomotives tenders and a gutted Alco PB unit equipped with newer steam generators with a higher capacity.
@Chuck Sartor posted:The Rio Grande passenger F units were sort of unique. The steam generators were 'stuffed' in a standard B unit and the controls were in the A unit. Later when the steam generators were worn out and not worth repairing the Grande used a pair of steam locomotives tenders and a gutted Alco PB unit equipped with newer steam generators with a higher capacity.
Likewise the ATSF never had steam generators in their A-unit FTs, F3s or F7s.
You could put a steam generator in a F-unit A, like an F3A, but there was very little room for the water. That's why most railroads only put the generators in B units. There was plenty of empty space in the B unit at the end where the cab and controls would have been in an A unit. Because of their greater length, FPs and E-units could have steam generators and large water supplies in an A unit.
@Hot Water posted:Don't know where that "old rumor" about "too little weight on each axle" causing wheel slippage came from.
Does it have something to do with the E units having their weight spread over six axels, two of which were not powered? I have read the reverse. About how a certain road was bemoaning that a particular locomotive was not offered with A-1-A trucks to decrease the axel weight.
@Bill N posted:Does it have something to do with the E units having their weight spread over six axels, two of which were not powered?
Not really.
I have read the reverse. About how a certain road was bemoaning that a particular locomotive was not offered with A-1-A trucks to decrease the axel weight.
I have no idea what you are referring to. EMD offered any number of "special" low axle loading locomotives.
