Why would Southern...

I was always told it was due to Union Contracts which stated the engine had to lead with the end that had the most glass/visibility.  Thus, the high hood had the same as the long hood.

Instead of providing dual control stands like N&W did on high-short hood engines, Southern put a single control stand on the right side with the long hood forward, oriented so that it could be operated in either direction.  Like N&W, Southern didn't want to turn engines at the end of a run.

The reasoning was that operating short hood forward, with a brakeman on the other side, it didn't matter which side the engineer was on as far as the signals were concerned.

If operating long hood forward the signals were on the right hand side.

EdKing

I was kinda interested to learn that N&W had some low-nose GP30's (and presumably other models) acquired from mergers, in this case from NKP.

Thanks for your input, guys; but, I'm still just as perplexed as before.

Short hoods seem to be the prudent/obvious choice; I don't see the sense in having a lesser special order built.

Rick

It is actually pretty simple in the thinking of the management of both the Southern Rwy, and the N&W Rwy:

1) Long hood being designated Front, whenever the unit or consist winds up at the end of its run, the whole thing does NOT have to be turned if the high short hood winds up in the lead going back "home". The crew was more than happy to have the short hood in the lead.

2) Pretty much all other railroads would have to turn the unit or consist so as to have the LOW short hood in the lead, since THAT end of the locomotive was/is designated as the "Front".

There was some interesting stuff that went on on the high-short-hood N&W.  Engineer Glen Stone on a westbound Kenova Turn running almost light back to Ironton to pick up hit a double-bottom semi load of coil steel at Coal Grove while going about 45 MPH.  The power was led by a long-hood forward GP9.  The impact broke the pins that held the prime mover to the frame and moved it back a couple of inches on the frame.  Short hood forward with nothing but a toilet in front of them, "Little Rock" Stone and his fireman wouldn't have survived.

A westbound was called at Shaffers Crossing for Bluefield, and on noting that their three units were led by a long-hood-forward Geep, went in to the Foreman's office to complain.  The foreman told them that if they didn't want the Geeps, he had a hot Y-6 ready to go and they could take it.

They got on the Geeps and left, quickly.

EdKing

Ed, you and Hot Water seem to have dodged the real question, which was;

quote:

 but, what's the reasoning behind high short hoods, if they're running long hood forward?

Personally, I think the high short hood makes the unit look better, as in, more complete and not half an engine.

You never saw me complain about a long hood EMD in the lead (GE's were another matter!). I actually prefered it. I'm convinced a long hood saved my life when we hit a semi flat bed laden with lumber!!!

Southern6482's explanation sounds credible, along with the other info. And if railroads wanted special features on their locos, the builders would do it.

Jim,

I'm assuming you didn't like long-hood GE's due to the "bat-wing" radiators blocking your vision?

Neither N&W nor Southern wanted to turn engines at the end of a run.  Both designated the long hood end with the "F". 

N&W's approach was to buy dual controls, so the engineer could always be on the right hand side.  The Southern's approach was as I outlined above.

N&W continued buying high short hoods until sometime, I guess in the 1970s when they bought some GEs with the low short hood and the controls on the left side.  The thinking was that if the engine was running long hood forward the engineer would be on the side with the signals.  If they were running short hood forward the engineer could see the signals no matter what side he was sitting on.  They weren't very popular with the crews.

I never minded running long hood forward.  The visibility was still better than that out of a 2-8-8-2 or 2-6-6-4 or even a J.

EdKing

Big Jim seems to get what I'm asking. I understand the benefits of not having to switch around your motive power, when a destination is reached.

The same aforementioned return scenarios work, using standard conventional(low) short hood power, in the lead. I don't see an obvious reason, to use high short hood equipped units, to get the job done.

Besides, appearance, where's the benefit; what does a high short hood provide that a conventional short hood doesn't?

It's obvious there's no significant advantage gained, running high short hood locomotives; otherwise, they'd still be in service.

Rick

Comparing SD40-2's and C30-7's, new mainline power for 30 years ago, the GE's had a somewhat wider long hood below the radiators, and along with the radiator protrusions and higher walkways, it would not make for good visibility running with the long hood forward. GE was gaining market share in new locomotives about that time. Kinda wonder if that was another factor in giving up the long-hood-forward policy. Southern and N&W were bucking the mainstream trend for better forward visibility, and they acquired some low-short-hood units through mergers, they must have finally decided to go with the flow.

Ace,

I think the lads in the south, just liked to do things their own way - the last to drop steam, high short hoods, liked to run em backwards...

Maybe, a little bit of southern pride/independence... contrary?

Rick

Maybe they were like me - I won't have a low short hood anything on my model railroad.

This is EXACTLY why the Southern and the N&W paid extra money to the builders for the high short hood. Even though the letter "F" was placed on the long hood end, the operating craft unions COULD have claimed that the end with the windshield was ACTUALLY the front. Soooooo, NO windshields  =  NO UNION CLAIMS!

Whatever the reason(s) behind shelling out for special equipment(high short hoods) in the end, those reasons took a back seat and conventional prevailed.

BTW, Canadian special orders, i.e. cowl bodies and Canadian cabs, faded into the sunset, too. Standardization seems to win out...

Rick

The actual reason the NS stopped purchasing and using the "long hood forward" practice, was due to a VERY expensive and long drawn-out legal action over the carcinogenic exhaust gasses entering the cab crew environment. The attorneys PROVED that when running long hood forward with a GE unit, exhaust "smoke" enters the cab. The attorneys for EMD/GM succesfully proved that the GM design two-stroke cycle prime mover, used in EMD locomotives, has a pressurized exhaust stream, and thus expels the gases higher as a result of the "closer to the cab" turbo exhaust stack. Thus the "deadly gases" do NOT enter the crew cab, when operating long hood forward.

The end result was, NS had to settle the case, mainly due the GE locomotives running long hood forward. Neither locomotive manufacturer had to "pay any money", aside from the expense of the corporate attorneys and expert witnesses, but NS doesn't "run long hood forward" anymore as a "policy".

I like the variety southern outfits brought to railroading; regardless, if that time has passed.

One of my favorite locomotive models is my Premier Southern SD45, that's set up to run long hood forward; and sports a high short hood. Great model!

Another killer, backwards running model, with a high short hood, is my Lackawanna H24-66 Train Master.

At one time, I had a Premier Pennsylvania RR SD35, on order. I think it was configured to operate long hood forward, and it has a high short hood. Never ended up getting; got impatient and went with the GP model, instead. I think I would have really liked the SD version, with it's non conformist ways.

We've talked about the pros and cons of various locomotive configurations; internationally, duo cabs(locomotives with a cab on each end) have found a niche for themselves. If an out fit can acquire duo cab units, for a good price, that seems like the way to go.

Rick

Too bad EMD couldn't apply their engineering expertise to making a toilet room vent for the short hood that pulled the stink OUT instead of pushing it into the cab ... a significant issue with those once-common Incinolet toilets that no-one wanted to "flush".

It's all part of the banter that we enjoy on OGR. I recognize that Hotwater has a wealth of knowledge and opinion on many subjects and I have learned to appreciate his distinctive style of dialogue! I have found this particular thread quite interesting and informative with the pooled knowledge of experts.

So while we are on the subject of short hoods which happen to house the toilet on EMD locos, this seemed an opportune time to broach a subject known to operating crews who have personally endured the odors of Incinolet toilets. I speak from the experience of many cab rides on Union Pacific (about 30 years ago).

I suspect that a roof-mount toilet room vent on a high-short-hood EMD might have performed better than the vent on a low-short-hood EMD. And this is not a totally frivolous subject. I did some investigation on wind flow patterns during some cab rides. I suggested to our Engineering Department head that we could devise a better toilet room vent and he told me we were not going to get involved with it; someone else had decided to specify the Incinolet toilets on locomotives and he wanted to let them take the flak for it.

Ace,

Not a mission I'd want to undertake, or be subjected to, in a locomotive cab; especially, in a conventional cab.

A while back, I recall hearing a southern railroad didn't equip their units with **itters? Ya just did it astronaut style, in your chair.

Rick

Well Ace, all that aside, EMD ONLY installed what ever brand/design that the customer PAID FOR! Ever since the "F" unit days, EMD locomotives did NOT come with ANY toilet as a basic component. Each and every customer's locomotive order was at the mercy of the latest vender salesman who "wined & dined" the Chief Mechanical Officer, in order to sell HIS product/brand. The never ending changes in toilets, water coolers, horns, electric bells, cab appurtenances, fuel tank level gauges, fuel filling fittings, head light locations, warning beacons, alertness devices, etc., etc., etc., drone the Customer Engineering Section nuts, not to mention manufacturing. Thus, EMD people were no more pleased with those ****ed Incinolet toilets than the operating crews, but we had no choice but to install them the way the vender AND the customer wanted!

With train crews working 12 hour shifts (previously 16 hours) with uncertain stopping points, having a toilet on the train seems kinda useful. I would suspect the unions demanded them. I think cab refrigerators may have been a union requirement.

Did the high-short-hood EMD's have a more convenient walk-in toilet room, or did you still step down like in the low-short-hood units? Just curious. Here we are talking about short hoods, and I wonder how many railfans and hobbyists know what's actually in there on an EMD. I remember seeing an old Alco that just had a big block of concrete in the short hood for ballast. Newer locos all have stout "collision posts" in the short hood. 

Incinolet toilets were touted as "low maintenance" because they incinerated waste and the primary maintenance was to dump out ashes - in theory. In actuality no-one wanted to "flush" them because they stunk. My thoughts were that they might have been OK if vented better. I guess they are all history now.

Maybe another reason for the high-short-hood was more headroom in the lavatory and no steps downstairs.

Rick:

Norfolk Southern locomotives in the first few years following the merger with N&W did not have toilets, at least the ones that came from Southern.  NS gave the crews bags to use.  When folks who lived along NS tracks began to complain about finding "used" bags on their property, the railroad switched to bags (orange ones, I believe) that had what amounted to serial numbers on them so the bags could be traced to a particular crew if someone complained.

As I recollect, one of the states within NS's territory, Virginia I think, enacted a requirement that locomotives on trains in that state had to be equipped with toilets.  At that point, NS began installing them in all their locomotives.

Curt

An SD45 running long hood first certainly had a distinctive appearance. 

The worst gassing I ever got on a diesel was on a steam-generator GP9 running short nose first.  This was a passenger unit (N&W redbird) taken out of freight service to run on Christmas mail trains, and the steam generator exhaust came right into the cab.  Temperature around ten degrees, and we were running with the windows wide open.

EdKing

Good thing this suit came after STEAM LOCOMOTIVES!

quote:

Jim,

I'm assuming you didn't like long-hood GE's due to the "bat-wing" radiators blocking your vision?

Nope, not at all. Hot Water spelled the real reason out very well!

After all of the legal mumbo-jumbo came to pass, I went out to get on my units and they had an EMD long hood forward in the lead. The Hostler Foreman came out and said they had to turn the lead unit to make it short hood lead. I told him I had no problem taking it like it was and even asked him not to turn the unit, but, he was having none of it and turned the unit.

While short hood forward is basically the policy, single unit turn-around shifters and locals will be seen running long hood forward either going out or coming back.

quote:

Norfolk Southern locomotives in the first few years following the merger with N&W did not have toilets

And before that, there was just a toilet seat with a hole straight down toward the roadbed, just like in the passenger cars.

The plastic bag era was something else indeed. The stories of people whining about having to use plastic bags on that cruise ship that loss power in the Gulf of Mexico did bring a chuckle. I wonder if any of the NS people that brought the plastic bag fiasco to fruitation on the NS units were on that cruise? I certainly hope so!

Thanks guys for joining in...

Curt, doesn't sound like a very respectful organization...

Ace, those pictures are brilliant! Excellent! My 3111H models that look. Those 45's almost had steam engine-like appearance. Thanks.

Rick

Boy do I like those pictures, Ace.

Rick

Always liked the Southern high hoods' appearance too.  I actually bought a custom Kato SD45 in HO some years ago; meant to get another, or perhaps an SD40-2 high nose, to go with it but never did.  Mean-looking engine from the front.

Maybe they ran long hood first so they could keep the EMD toilet fumes downstream behind them.

Woulda been really cool if they had run DD35's long hood forward.