# Why were E-8's not used for Freight?



## Jerry McColgan (Feb 8, 2008)

I understand that the EMD E units had two motors while the F units had one and the E units had six axles while the F units had four but they did use FP-7's and F-7's for passenger and freight so why were E units relegated to passenger only service?

I would guess that as the E units aged some of them must have been used for freight hauling. Is this correct? If not, why not? 
For me the E-8 looks a lot better than a FA-1 & FB-1. I prefer the EMD rounded looks to the Alco flat front. Also it would be easier and cheaper to install one Revolution and one sound system in an E-8 instead of modifying a FA-1 & FB-1 to work with a single Revolution. I realize I can do whatever I like but I like it a bit better if I can justify it with some sort of actual railroad history.


Thanks,

Jerry


----------



## Totalwrecker (Feb 26, 2009)

Jerry, 
I'm not sure, but unless they were regeared they wouldn't be suitable to haul drag freights or start heavy freight trains. Kinda like a quarter horse vs. a mule... or Corvette vs a Mack truck, similar horse power, but used very differently... 

John


----------



## Dave F (Jan 2, 2008)

I agree with you Jerry, I think the E8's were some of the prettiest diesel loco ever built. 

I'm certain that somewhere along the line an E8 pulled a freight consist somewhere. But if memory serves me correctly the E8s were built for speed. The gearing in the drive train was engineered to give the E8s smooth acceleration to speed for pulling a passenger consist at 80+ mph. They may not have had enough low end torque to get a 100+ car freight consist rolling. It's one thing to pulls a 20 car passenger train of fairly light Pullman cars full of people. It an entirely different kettle of fish to drag 100 cars of grain, coal, plywood, pulpwood, sheet metal.... you get my point. As big and burly and powerful as the E8s were, their gearing may have limited their usefulnesss.


----------



## George Schreyer (Jan 16, 2009)

E units were also kind of old by the time that they were retired from passenger service and tended to be used up. By that time, better road units, ones with better visibility, were available. To make them suitable for freight service, they would need to be regeared and this was pretty expensive for a worn out unit. 

Some passenger locos, such as a few PA's, were regeared and used in freight service. These had the larger and almost indestructible Westinghouse 75 traction motor. These could marginally be used in drag service even without regearing. 

The A1A truck on an E unit was also a problem. The loco carried considerable weight on an unpowered axle and therefore less weight on the actual driven axles. They would tend to slip more than a B-B unit of similar weight at full lug.


----------



## Mike Reilley (Jan 2, 2008)

George hit it...it was the trucks. The A1A trucks on the E8 has two of the three axles powered...but all three axles supporting the weight. The F units also had two axles powered...but ALL the weight was on the powered trucks...meaning higher adhesion. That means stronger slow going pulling power (dragging) and the ability to accelerate faster. So, where rail was strong (heavy), the F units had an advantage because they could put more power down. On light railed track, where they needed to spread out the weight, three wheeled trucks were used...and that lowered the amount of power that could be put down just because you had less weight on each axle...and if you had unpowered axles (liked the A1A trucks), you put even less power down.


Of interest, one of the current US freight locomotive manufacturers now offers their heavy road engine (it may be an AC4400....that size at least) in two truck configurations. One version is C-C trucked where all wheels are powered. The other version is an A1A-A1A trucked version. Both versions use the same truck frames. The A1A version just leaves out one traction motor. For mountain use...they recommend the C-C trucked version because it has more powered axles, so traction motor current loads are less for a given amount of horsepower applied to the rails.. For flatland use, the A1A-A1A version is used because it requires less maintenance due to fewer traction motors. In both cases, the prime mover is the same.


----------



## Jerry McColgan (Feb 8, 2008)

Hi Guys,

Thank you for the information. I knew there must have been a good reason but I could not think what it could be.

Jerry


----------



## George Schreyer (Jan 16, 2009)

In high speed service, the A1A trucks tracked better than the B-B trucks in many early freight units until the much better modern truck designs were developed. The C-C freight unit trucks also tracked well. SP engineers called the SD9 the "Cadillac" for it's smooth ride. The SD9 actually existed for use on branch lines that had lighter rail as the wheel loading was less. It had much more traction than horsepower though. C-C trucks didn't get really stressed until the higher horsepower units, like the H24-66 TrainMaster appeared. After than, the things just got bigger and bigger.


----------



## Randy Stone (Jan 2, 2008)

May not been the norm, but here is an Erie Lackawanna E8 heading a freight drag


----------



## Polaris1 (Jan 22, 2010)

Interesting story on the 1939 C&NW E-3 AA pairs. When the E-3s arrived in Chicago..... They were tested & evaluated on 45 car Freight trains from Chicago to St Paul up and back. Since no C&NW streamer passenger cars in yellow were available for 6 months plus..... The E-3 pairs pulled heavy weight Pass trains. When the "light weight" streamliners were delivered..... The E-3 power & consist were debugged & ready to roll.
On the E side vs the F side...... The A1A E trucks rode like a Cadillac...... The BB F trucks rode like a dump truck.....

The E units had two smaller diesel Gen sets, one for each truck..... The F series had 1 Bigger diesel/ Generator pair. 

There is a probability the the E-3s also pulled the shorter green C&NW streamliners (Challenger) Passenger cars as they were in the E-3 delivery era.


----------



## aceinspp (Jan 2, 2008)

E-8s and F units that where use in commuter service on the C&NW in the 70s often were used in freight service on week ends but where returned to pass for Monday morning rush hr. Later RJD


----------



## Scottychaos (Jan 2, 2008)

E-units were used a lot for freight, especially near the end of their careers..probably a lot more than people realise..

On the north-east railroads that had E-units (mainly PRR, NYC and Erie Lackawanna, and a few more)
when a lot of passenger service was ending in the 60's, the E's still had some life in them..
EL in particular used the E's a lot in freight service..im sure PRR and NYC did too..
mostly in the late 60's and into the early 70's..

yes, they were designed, built, primarily used, and optimized for passenger service..
but there was no rule that said they couldnt haul frieght if necessary!

el810alx.jpg[/b]

el810clb.jpg[/b]

el812-n.jpg[/b]

Scot


----------



## Jerry McColgan (Feb 8, 2008)

Posted By aceinspp on 02 May 2010 08:32 AM 
E-8s and F units that where use in commuter service on the C&NW in the 70s often were used in freight service on week ends but where returned to pass for Monday morning rush hr. Later RJD 

Thanks for ALL of the updates on where the E units were used in freight (especially with the C&NW since I am originally from Chicago). RJ's logic fits very well with my layout in that I am not going to be pulling more than 18 freight cars (probably mostly reefers) with any of my E-8's and using them with E-8's would qualify them as "Fast Freight."

Now if someone could come up with a photo of a UP E unit hauling freight that would REALLY make my day. Any photos with B&O and or PRR E units in freight service would also be very helpful.

Regards,

Jerry


----------



## Dave F (Jan 2, 2008)

This is as close as I could find Jerry...


----------



## Jerry McColgan (Feb 8, 2008)

Posted By Dave F on 02 May 2010 12:06 PM 
This is as close as I could find Jerry...


----------



## Scottychaos (Jan 2, 2008)

Here you go Jerry:

3364531106_da35b29e3d.jpg[/b]

3363709831_97835b2b77.jpg[/b]

those are the "executive E's"..UP's preserved set...

photos from 1998.

I cant find a vintage shot of a "regular" UP E-unit in freight service in the 60's or 70's..
although I did find several references to it happening..

Scot


----------



## Jerry McColgan (Feb 8, 2008)

Hi Scot,

Thank you. You and RJ have made my day.

Jerry


----------



## up9018 (Jan 4, 2008)

If you want to see locomotives used for a purpose that they were not intended for, look no further than the Rock Island.


----------



## Dave F (Jan 2, 2008)

But.. I heard it's a mighty good road. It's the road to ride..


----------



## Jerry McColgan (Feb 8, 2008)

You guys are messing with my mind. I am from Chicago and I recently read a book about railroads in Arkansas where I discovered that the Rock Island has a lot of history running through Arkansas including stations in Little Rock and elsewhere around the state.

I was happy with trying to focus my modeling on MpPac, Cotton Belt and UP. I am trying to ignore the Frisco line because it was in the west side of the state. Now along comes the Rock Island and I want to ignore it too (there are limits you know).









Jerry


----------



## Randy Stone (Jan 2, 2008)

GO ROCK ISLAND!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 

 
Come on Jerry, how can you ignore a railroad with a paint scheme like this? 
Rock ON!!!!!!!


----------



## ORD23 (Jan 2, 2010)

Thanks Jerry for bringing up this subject, and thanks George for answering my questions (same as Jerry's), on my USAT PA's.


----------



## Jerry McColgan (Feb 8, 2008)

Posted By rlvette on 04 May 2010 07:12 PM 
GO ROCK ISLAND!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 

http://s541.photobucket.com/albums/...n=view&current=RockIslandGEES44ACsecond-2.jpg 
Come on Jerry, how can you ignore a railroad with a paint scheme like this? 
Rock ON!!!!!!! 



Well...

Aristo-Craft makes it easier in that they do not make a GP-40, SD-45, E-8 or Dash-9 in Rock Island.

Perhaps if you first convince Lewis you might then convince me. Fair enough?









Actually I was pleasantly surprised to find that Aristo made the Cotton Belt GP-40. Now if Lewis offered a Cotton Belt and or MoPac in other locos that too would be tempting. Then too there is the question of matching rolling stock- at least a matching caboose. 

Cheers,

Jerry


----------



## Jerry McColgan (Feb 8, 2008)

Posted By ORD23 on 04 May 2010 10:12 PM 
Thanks Jerry for bringing up this subject, and thanks George for answering my questions (same as Jerry's), on my USAT PA's. 

You are welcome. I think the answers were both informative and interesting.

Regards,

Jerry


----------



## Dave F (Jan 2, 2008)

Oh I don't know Jerry... There may be a few out there.. 

http://rldhobbies.com/art23550.aspx 

http://rldhobbies.com/usar22100r.aspx


----------



## Scottychaos (Jan 2, 2008)

http://rldhobbies.com/art23550.aspx 

"DELIVERY WINTER 2010" 

Spring 2010 makes sense.. 
Summer 2010 makes sense.. 
Autumn 2010 makes sense.. 

but "Winter 2010" could be "winter of 2009-2010" or "winter of 2010-2011"  

Did they come out this past January (Winter 2010) and are available now, or will they be coming out this December? (Winter 2010) 
we dont know!  
come on people..unless you live in Australia, you cant use "winter" in that way.. 

Scot


----------



## Jerry McColgan (Feb 8, 2008)

Posted By Dave F on 05 May 2010 08:13 AM 
Oh I don't know Jerry... There may be a few out there.. 

http://rldhobbies.com/art23550.aspx 

http://rldhobbies.com/usar22100r.aspx 

Trouble maker!


----------



## Jerry McColgan (Feb 8, 2008)

Posted By Scottychaos on 05 May 2010 12:34 PM 


http://rldhobbies.com/art23550.aspx 

"DELIVERY WINTER 2010" 

Spring 2010 makes sense.. 
Summer 2010 makes sense.. 
Autumn 2010 makes sense.. 

but "Winter 2010" could be "winter of 2009-2010" or "winter of 2010-2011"  

Did they come out this past January (Winter 2010) and are available now, or will they be coming out this December? (Winter 2010) 
we dont know!  
come on people..unless you live in Australia, you cant use "winter" in that way.. 

Scot 

I must be blind (no surprise there). Where did you see a delivery date?

I would think that winter 2010 would be the winter of 2010/2011 even though our worst winter month is normally February here.

Thanks,

Jerry


----------



## aceinspp (Jan 2, 2008)

Gotta love the Rock. GP40 by RLD. Later RJD


----------



## Tom Bray (Jan 20, 2009)

What happened to the black and white on these models? The real ones look really sharp, the models don't seem to quite do it. 

Tom


----------



## Scottychaos (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By Tom Bray on 07 May 2010 08:11 PM 
What happened to the black and white on these models? The real ones look really sharp, the models don't seem to quite do it. 

Tom
Tom, you are looking at two very different paintschemes! 
I assume you mean the black & white on this engine?









Thats what is now refered to as a "heritage scheme"..Union Pacific started the trend a few years ago with their "heritage engines"..
(although others railroads have been doing it for much longer..UP really made it famous though)

That Rock Island scheme, above, was done by the Iowa Interstate Railroad on a modern GE ES44AC locomotive..I believe there is only one of them.
that scheme is based on the original Rock Island cab unit freight scheme:
CRIP_158_FA1.jpg[/b]

40650.gif[/b]

The Real Rock Island RR never used that scheme on more modern diesels...like all railroads, it changed it paintschemes many times..

They also had this passenger scheme:
RIE8A.JPEG[/b]

This more modern diesel scheme:









is totally accurate.

Rock Island was also known for their blue scheme:
RI_RK_GP38-2.jpg[/b]

and there are probably a few more..

Scot


----------



## Scottychaos (Jan 2, 2008)

trying to fix my live links..somehow made a double post..sorry..
(why cant we just delete posts?) 


can anyone tell me why my live links dont work in the post above??
I have tried editing that post multiple times..I just cant figure out what is wrong with them..)


----------



## eheading (Jan 5, 2008)

I understand that you can get that Rock Island GP40 from a very reliable dealer in Illinois, and for a VERY reasonable price!

Ed


----------



## Nicholas Savatgy (Dec 17, 2008)

Posted By eheading on 08 May 2010 08:39 AM 
I understand that you can get that Rock Island GP40 from a very reliable dealer in Illinois, and for a VERY reasonable price!

Ed


Yes you can, and on yours and Stans advise on another thread i went and bought 3. I hope this time they run ok cause the last 3 i had i sold cause they didnt run so hot. the dealer would be Robbie at RLD hobbies.








Also as a side note these will be repainted to MOW colors of the CSX Should look very cool pulling my new Ribbon Rail train or my almost complete Mow cars, thanks to Marty for the help with some of those.


----------



## eheading (Jan 5, 2008)

Just remember, Nick, if you don't like the way they run, you can always put FA1 motorblocks under them, and they will run flawlessly!!

Ed


----------



## SteveC (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By Scottychaos on 08 May 2010 07:05 AM 
{snip,,,}[/i] can anyone tell me why my live links don't work in the post above??
I have tried editing that post multiple times..I just cant figure out what is wrong with them..) {snip...}[/i]

Can't tell you why a seemingly proper formatted anchor element doesn't work. I believe that the forum software developer, for whatever reason either by accident or design (only God & the developer know why, well on second thought, maybe only the developer), didn't think that pointing to an image file with an anchor element was proper??????

However, I can tell you that if you do not use the URL as the displayed text for the URL (i.e. go back and check your previous reply, I edited the links) then everything will work as expected.

Oh, on the last hyperlink in the reply. When I attempted to copy and paste it into a separate browser window for testing the validity of the URL, it wouldn't work until I removed the 'www.' from the URL.


----------



## Scottychaos (Jan 2, 2008)

^ Thanks for fixing the links Steve! 
I will take a look at what you did and file it away for future reference.. 
Scot


----------

