# Diesel Cab Terminology?



## Jerry McColgan (Feb 8, 2008)

I've been reading an old Trains magazine where the author implied that diesels with A1A trucks were "Cab" or "Carbody" units and that B-B units were called "Covered Wagons."

It had been my understanding that all EMD E and F and ALCO F "A" units were called either "Cabs" or "Covered Wagons" and either "A" or "B" units were referred to as a "Carbody."

What is the correct terminology for the round nose "A" locomotives? Are they all called "Cabs" or "Covered Wagons?"

For that matter would such descriptions refer to a GG1 or just ALCO and EMD units?

Thanks,

Jerry


----------



## Spule 4 (Jan 2, 2008)

Correct is their Mfg. designation or railroad designation. Anything else is slang, which RR folks use regularly from road to road.


----------



## RimfireJim (Mar 25, 2009)

Posted By Jerry McColgan on 28 Jun 2011 06:24 PM What is the correct terminology for the round nose "A" locomotives? Are they all called "Cabs" or "Covered Wagons?"



I've seen both those slang terms applied numerous times in the hobby press for many years to your subject in question, where the body of the locomotive provides structure, with "hood unit" being applied to locomotives that get all their structure from a frame and typically, but not always, have exposed walkways.


----------



## Richard Smith (Jan 2, 2008)

Railfan terminology: 

When chasing diesel photos in the sixties it was almost always "cab units" or "covered wagons" for EMD A units and combinations particularly. Alcos were called "Alco cabs" or just "Alcos" to diferentiate them from the over abundant EMD units. Alco PA's were just called "PAs". There weren't very many FA units out west, SP&S and GN had some, so I don't know what they were called in the east where they were a bit more plentiful. EMD GPs and SDs or Alco RSs were called hood units. Baldwins were usually called by name because they were relatively rare. 

Of course these were slang terms. Many more knowledgeable railfans used more proper GP9, SD7, F3, F7, GP35, RS3, etc. Virtually everybody knew what a GG1 was so no slang needed there even out west. One thing you didn't want to do was ask one of the railroaders the name or specs of the units they were on. To most of them their engines were just 3700s or 6000s, etc. It was surprising how little most of them knew about the particulars. 

Of course if you are old enough to have witnessed the demise of the beautiful steam locomotive to the diesel you are allowed to call them most anything you want. hehe! There was a notable exception to the steam lover's aversion to diesels and that was the Alco PA. Because of their natural beauty as well as the profusion of black smoke (an unintended Alco trademark) as they accelerated their train they were declared an "honorary steam locomotive". 

So I guess you can incorrectly but properly call them cab units or covered wagons or correctly "one a' them ##*^!! diesels".


----------



## DKRickman (Mar 25, 2008)

Posted By Richard Smith on 28 Jun 2011 10:46 PM 
Railfan terminology: 

One thing you didn't want to do was ask one of the railroaders the name or specs of the units they were on. To most of them their engines were just 3700s or 6000s, etc. It was surprising how little most of them knew about the particulars
I once had an old head engineer tell me that we have two kinds of engines on NS - big black ones and little black ones. The vast majority of railroaders neither know nor care whether the engine in question is an SD50, SD60, or a D8-40CW. Many couldn't tell you the difference between an EMD or a GE, except for the fact that any engineer worth his salt knows that an EMD will load much faster than a GE, but a GE will have better dynamic brakes.

There's a simple reason for that, in my opinion. It doesn't matter what the manufacturer calls it. What matters is what it can pull. Tonnage ratings are given by model, but also by road number, and the road number is the fastest and most reliable means of identifying an engine. I know exactly what any engine numbered between 8776 and 9999 will pull on the steepest grade I run on. Being a railfan, I also know all sorts of things like the engine model number, locomotive model number, etc., but that's outside anything I need to know to do my job.


So the situation hasn't changed - in fact it may be more extreme than it was when you noticed it. I find it rather amusing to talk to railfans, because some of them know far more thgan the average railroader about equipment, schedules, etc, and some of them have some really funny misinformation.


----------



## Scottychaos (Jan 2, 2008)

Modern railfans refer to two main types of cabs: 

Standard Cab: (mostly in reference to EMD's) 









Wide Cab: (GE and EMD, cab styles slight different, but both called "Wide Cab") 









GE has a unique cab style..this is a "Standard Cab Dash-8" 









The Dash-8's are getting rare..they are starting to die out on the Class-1's, but there are still a few out there. 

Scot


----------



## Jerry McColgan (Feb 8, 2008)

I appreciate Everyones responses.

Scot's reply brings up another question.

Why is the Wide Cab also sometimes referred to as the Safety Cab?

Another question comes to mind...

Why is it that there seems to be a general understanding that many if not most railroaders do not particularly like railfans? This is not based on any personal experience but on many comments I have read over the years including suggestions that railfans applying for work at railroads should not mention that they are railfans.

Thanks,

Jerry


----------



## Jerry McColgan (Feb 8, 2008)

Posted By Richard Smith on 28 Jun 2011 10:46 PM 
One thing you didn't want to do was ask one of the railroaders the name or specs of the units they were on. To most of them their engines were just 3700s or 6000s, etc. It was surprising how little most of them knew about the particulars. 
I do not question this but it strikes me as very strange.

As a pilot I am expected to know all the particulars of each and every aircraft I fly and to have been thoroughly checked out (and sometimes certificated) before I can fly a different type of aircraft.

I would have assumed that different locomotives would tend to have significant differences in where and how the controls are located and how they work.

If I move from a Ford to a Chevy to a Toyota etc. I am continually guessing where the manufacturer moved the controls. If Ford windows roll up clockwise I can count on GM windows rolling up counter-clockwise.

What am I missing? I realize locomotives do not move vertically and cannot even control their horizontal movements but pilots are not at the throttle of 6 - 24,000+ HP engines pulling mile long cargoes weighing many hundreds of tons of hazardous and explosive materials.

Jerry


----------



## DKRickman (Mar 25, 2008)

Posted By Jerry McColgan on 29 Jun 2011 10:20 AM 

I would have assumed that different locomotives would tend to have significant differences in where and how the controls are located and how they work.

Jerry,

Unlike aircraft, locomotives are designed to work together reliably. There is a standard AAR control stand which most older locomotives have. The newer locomotives with desktop controls still use the same controls, simply relocated horizontally on the desktop, instead of vertically on the control stand. While some controls are located in odd places in a few cases (I really don't like the EOT emergency switch on the SD70M), they are generally easy to locate. Remember that the range of controls is SIGNIFICANTLY smaller than on a plane.. There's the reverser, throttle, brakes (automatic, independent, and dynamic), horn, bell, sand, and headlights. That covers 95% of what ?I need from day to day, and they're all in standard locations and orientations.


From an engineer's standpoint, 24000 HP is 24000 HP, whether it's in a single unit or 6 4000 HP units, and regardless of the manufacturer of each of those units. The controls and operation will be essentially the same.


As an aside, you mentyion being a pilot. Do you have an opinion on GE aircraft engines, relative to other manufacturers?


----------



## DKRickman (Mar 25, 2008)

Posted By Jerry McColgan on 29 Jun 2011 10:06 AM 
Why is the Wide Cab also sometimes referred to as the Safety Cab?

The cabs have very large bulkheads in the nose, which can help prevent foreign objects from entering in the event of a crash. Standard cabs were more or less tin boxes with windows. The widecabs (also known as widebodies on NS) also tend to have better seats and more room to move around, but with a better seating position in the event of a collision. Not that I've ever tested that theory, nor do I wish to do so...
Posted By Jerry McColgan on 29 Jun 2011 10:06 AM 
Why is it that there seems to be a general understanding that many if not most railroaders do not particularly like railfans? This is not based on any personal experience but on many comments I have read over the years including suggestions that railfans applying for work at railroads should not mention that they are railfans.
This comes up from time to time on various boards. The general experience is that railfans (especially "foamers") are interested in playing with trains, or working for the RR as the ultimate extension of their fandom. Most discover that it's a real job, and not as much fun when you have to get out of bed at 2 AM and spend the next 12 hours in the pouring rain. Most don't last. They also tent to get so excited watching the trains that they forget to pay attention and do their job, which makes them both useless and dangerous to themselves and others.

Railfans CAN be excellent railroaders, of course. I know quite a few, and hope I can count myself among them. In general, though, it's a pretty poor idea from the RR's point of view.

If you like a rather adult analogy, imagine an incredibly attractive mature woman getting into bed with a teenage virgin (especially a geeky one). She's not likely to be very satisfied, because he'll get so excited that he's finally getting his ultimate fantasy that he'll forget to actually pay any attention to her or her needs. I've seen the same thing happen on the RR multiple times.


----------



## Jerry McColgan (Feb 8, 2008)

Posted By DKRickman on 29 Jun 2011 10:33 AM 
Jerry,

Unlike aircraft, locomotives are designed to work together reliably. There is a standard AAR control stand which most older locomotives have. The newer locomotives with desktop controls still use the same controls, simply relocated horizontally on the desktop, instead of vertically on the control stand. While some controls are located in odd places in a few cases (I really don't like the EOT emergency switch on the SD70M), they are generally easy to locate. Remember that the range of controls is SIGNIFICANTLY smaller than on a plane.. There's the reverser, throttle, brakes (automatic, independent, and dynamic), horn, bell, sand, and headlights. That covers 95% of what ?I need from day to day, and they're all in standard locations and orientations.


From an engineer's standpoint, 24000 HP is 24000 HP, whether it's in a single unit or 6 4000 HP units, and regardless of the manufacturer of each of those units. The controls and operation will be essentially the same.


The general experience is that railfans (especially "foamers") are interested in playing with trains, or working for the RR as the ultimate extension of their fandom. Most discover that it's a real job, and not as much fun when you have to get out of bed at 2 AM and spend the next 12 hours in the pouring rain. Most don't last.

As an aside, you mention being a pilot. Do you have an opinion on GE aircraft engines, relative to other manufacturers? 



Hi Kenneth,

Thanks for explaining it in easy to understand terms. I for one enjoy model railroading (especially steam locos) but I have never given any thought to ever working on a railroad (especially driving a steam locomotive). I knew I was too much of a wimp to subject myself to railroad working conditions. To a lesser extent I enjoy flying and while I am qualified in a multitude of light single and multi-engine aircraft to the point of being a ME-CFI I have never given serious thought to working in the airline industry. When I got into flying (on the GI Bill) there were too many ex-military jet jockeys (no disrespect intended) to compete with their military training and at 6'5" most cockpits were not very user friendly for me.

As for GE aircraft engines they were too big for the aircraft I flew (none larger than King Aires). I am more familiar with Lycomings and Continentals. I did give some check rides to military pilots and it was interesting to see how much difficulty some had learning to fly the little ones straight and level.

Jerry


----------



## jgallaway81 (Jan 5, 2009)

Counting the slang as "accurate" simply because its used most, here is the layout of the engine designs:

Covered Wagon: Any locomotive that has a full-width carbody. FA/FB, PA/PB, F3-7, E8/9. Also include the UP 8,500hp gas-turbines as well as the N&W and C&O steam turbine electrics. Also chock into this category the Amtrak F40PH, P42 units.

Carbody: Any engine with a UNCOVERED walkway around the engine compartment. Here we start with the SW/NW switchers, RS3, C***, GP7/9, GP15, GP30, GP40-2, SD9, SD40-2, SD50, SD60, U25b, U36c, Super7's, DASH-7, (standard cab) DASH-8

Wide Nose: DASH-8, DASH-9 (AC& DC), GEVO (AC& DC), SD60i, SD70M & M-2, SD70MAC, SD80MAC, SD90MAC, SD70ACe

As for NS wide-noses, the railfan slang for them is "catfish" 
@import url(http://www.mylargescale.com/Provide...ad.ashx?type=style&file=SyntaxHighlighter.css);@import url(/providers/htmleditorproviders/cehtmleditorprovider/dnngeneral.css);


----------



## DKRickman (Mar 25, 2008)

Add to your list of terms "hood" and cowl" - hood units are those (as Jim noted above) which derive their strength from a frame and have a narrow hood covering the prime mover, etc. Cowl units are mechanically identical, but have a full width body - F45, F40PH, P30CH, F59PHI, etc. I have never heard to those as covered wagons, and they are mechanically quite different from the earlier E and F units. Those had a truss frame body, and could not function without it. A hood or cowl unit can do just fine without any work at all, and would look like a diesel generator sitting on a flat car (which it basically is).


----------



## jgallaway81 (Jan 5, 2009)

Kenneth, might have something to do with locale... I'm in the heart of the old Conrail territory. Might be different down [email protected] url(http://www.mylargescale.com/Providers/HtmlEditorProviders/CEHtmlEditorProvider/Load.ashx?type=style&file=SyntaxHighlighter.css);@import url(/providers/htmleditorproviders/cehtmleditorprovider/dnngeneral.css);


----------



## Jerry McColgan (Feb 8, 2008)

Its funny how things work out at times. I have been reading through a bunch of old Trains Magazines and I just ran across this in the October 1995 issue. I was not even in this hobby back then.

































As far as I can tell, it pretty much agrees with what has been said here.

Has anything changed since 1995? I would guess that there have been a lot of new locomotives since then.

Jerry


----------

