[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: PC: Re: white frames and worms



> Just because you refused to accept these units as U33's does not mean that they did not INTERNALLY have all of the parts to qualify.  Both 2858 and 2859 had the larger radiators and were rated at 3300 HP regardless of what the plates and class given.  The class designation does count for anything.  The MILW U33C's were given a class y the customer that indicated that they were 3000 HP as well.  CP Rail gave it's lone C640 the same class as it's M636's indicating that it had a 3600 HP engine.
> 
> The radiators screens and intakes on these two units did differ from the NYC U30B fleet.  However they are very much alike the later PC U33B fleet.  In fact the NYC's U30B's differed greatly.  The 2830-2839 look like U28B's and the later units look like a cross between the later style (which the NYC never received) and a U28B.
> 
> As I said earlier, these two units were U33B's rated at 3300 hp in everything but name so call them what you like.
> 
> Regarding your second post; have you ever heard of test beds?  GE was famous for shipping production units with ratings other than the ordered or stock rating.  This was done with some PRR U25C's, L&N U23B's and MP B23-7's to name a few.  While the L&N unit did not result in a prodution model, the U25C resulted in the U28 line and the B23-7 resulted in the B30-7A.  This is in addition to the SP B30-7's (or B36-7's).  What features are you refering to as being close to stock U30 features?  The NYC purchased three orders of U30B's (the 2858 and 2859 being the last two of the second order).  None of the NYC U30B's look like the later production U30B's (which look more like U23B's and U33/36B's without the wide radiator).  The only major difference between the NYC U33B's and the first production U33's is the over the hood flared sheet metal and a slightly different screen over the radiator opens and air intakes.  No U30B ever had the wide radiators.
> 
> What makes you call the U30B an obsolete model?  The last ones were produced in 1974 outliving the production of the U33B by more than three years!  What more, I am sure that the NYC ordered U30B's and thus to fill the contract, if the 3300HP rating did not work out, the units could be rerated at the specify horsepower.  In the case of the L&N U23B's, GE later rerated them from 2700 HP to the stock 2250.
> 
> I would bet much on your comment that not even Extra 2200 (not 2000) ever reported the MILW U33C's as being ordered and classed as U30C's.  I CAN PRODUCE the issues (which I cannot give by number of of the top of my head but it is within the first 20 issues) that reports how they were ordered, classed and marked as U30C's and yet were delivered as the first U33C's.  Check your statements before calling them facts!
> 
> ----------
> From: 	ERIE LACKAWANNA SD45-2[SMTP:ERIE-LACKAWANNA -AT- prodigy.net]
> Reply To: 	penn-central -AT- smellycat.com
> Sent: 	Friday, May 25, 2001 2:43 PM
> To: 	penn-central -AT- smellycat.com
> Subject: 	Re: PC: Re: white frames and worms
> 
> 
> 
> Ha ha.  Let's see, 2830-2888 are U30B's which was in production at that
> time, so how do you account of a not yet produced U33B during U30B
> production? Builder's plates are corrrecrt and certainly do match GE
> records. No one ever reported MILW U33C's  not even X2000 as U30C since U30C
> production ceased same time as that for U30B.  GE would not stamp an
> obsolete model number on a current model.
> 
> Yes, 2858 may "look" like a U33B but insides and period produced say U30B as
> does NYC Class GF30 and the NYC Rosters. There are many U33B details missing
> from 2858 that are correct for a U30B. 2858 only has an experimental flared
> radiator which does not  classify it as a not yet produced model.
> 
> 
> > While the builders plates were stamped U30B, all of GE's production
> records call the 2858 and 2859 U33B's.  In fact all internal components were
> U33B components.  The 2858 and 2859 did have an addition transition piece
> that flared the radiator overhang into the top of the hood.  However, this
> also appeared on the GE test set of U33B's as well (GE 301-304).  This was
> the only feature that was not carried over into production U33B's.
> >
> > Call them what you like, the two units were more like 33's than 30's.
> >
> > GE has had this description issue with other units.  The MILW had four
> U33C's that had builders plates stamped U30C.  The first B36-7's were built
> as part of an SP order for B30-7's and show that model on the builders plate
> just to name a couple of examples.
> >
> > John
> >
> > > ----------
> > > From: ERIE LACKAWANNA SD45-2[SMTP:ERIE-LACKAWANNA -AT- prodigy.net]
> > > Reply To: penn-central -AT- smellycat.com
> > > Sent: Friday, May 25, 2001 10:39 AM
> > > To: penn-central -AT- smellycat.com
> > > Subject: Re: PC: Re: white frames and worms
> > >
> > > NYC never owned any U33B's. Engine 2858 is a one of a kind U30B built by
> GE
> > > using an experimental pre-U33B like shell. Prototype U33B/C units did
> not
> > > have the sloped roof line meet the radiator as 2858 has.  Engine 2859 up
> are
> > > U30B's with standard production bodes. Only PC owned the U33B's and were
> > > 2900 series.
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Since NYC only had two U33B's you are either talking about 2858 or
> 2859.
> > > I have
> > > > slides of both of these taken in the early 1970's in full PC paint and
> > > neither
> > > > has the white frame stripe.  The unit in the Conrail volume showing
> the
> > > white
> > > > frame stripe has to be the result of worn off paint.  Most of the ex -
> NYC
> > > > U28B's and U30B's only received repainting once and by the time 1976
> came
> > > around
> > > > the paint jobs were pretty worn, showing the NYC markings and white
> frame
> > > > stripes underneath.  Back then they didn't sand-blast off the older
> paint
> > > but
> > > > just repainted over the existing coatings and sometimes the existing
> dirt.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > "Bill K." <pontiac -AT- dreamscape.com> on 05/23/2001 11:12:39 PM
> > > >
> > > > Please respond to penn-central -AT- smellycat.com
> > > >
> > > > To:   penn-central -AT- smellycat.com
> > > > cc:    (bcc: Mark Branibar/USA/NA/Praxair)
> > > > Subject:  PC: Re: white frames and worms
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > There's a shot of an ex-NYC U33B in Conrail Volume 1 that made it to
> > > Conrail
> > > > with the white frame stripe intact; didn't seem to have had any PC
> woms
> > > > either.   Given that Conrail got rid of those pretty early, I doubt it
> got
> > > > painted blue -
> > > >
> > > > Bill K.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: "Patrick Harris" <seaboardempire -AT- earthlink.net>
> > > > To: <penn-central -AT- smellycat.com>
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2001 5:32 PM
> > > > Subject: PC: white frames and worms
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >   In PC power, I found:
> > > > >
> > > > > Page 52-U30B #2855, NYC # on cab, black paint peeling off white sill
> and
> > > > NYC
> > > > > cigar band on cab, very large worms on nose
> > > > >
> > > > > Page 121 GP9 #5825 PC name on long hood, worms on nose light sill.
> > > Bought
> > > > > second-hand from C&O, operating on Canada Southern. Cannot tell if
> sill
> > > is
> > > > > white or if the loco is still blue/yellow with PC stencils replacing
> the
> > > > C&O
> > > > > (08-72).
> > > > >
> > > > > Page 132 Rio Grande F units is full Rio Grande with worm logos
> simply
> > > > > stenciled in on flanks and nose, white #721 in standard PC location
> at
> > > > back
> > > > > of hood. (just tossing that in),
> > > > >
> > > > > Page 180 X-NH GP9 #7555, worms on nose, white # on cab sub-base,
> orange
> > > > cab
> > > > > still in place, no other markings, 1971.
> > > > >
> > > > > Page 208 X-NYC SW8 units with white sill #8634 NYC lettering and
> paint,
> > > no
> > > > > PC markings; #8613 with tiny PC worm logo, NYC numbers, ratty white> 
> > > sill.
> > > > >
> > > > > Page 212 X-NYC SW7s #8865 and #8883 both have PC markings, full
> white
> > > > sill.
> > > > >
> > > > > Page 217 X-NH SW1200 #9182, white sill, small worm logo and PC
> number on>
> > > > cab
> > > > > side, back of cab still red/orange, back of cab sub-base painted
> white.
> > > > >
> > > > > Page 218 X-IHB Sw1500 #9227, full PC switcher scheme, white sill.
> > > > >
> > > > > It appears that white side sills were uncommon, but not rare, for
> > > > switchers.
> > > > > It appears that white sills on road units (GP40, U30B) were more
> from
> > > poor
> > > > > paint jobs or benign neglect in repainting from NYC schemes. This is
> > > just
> > > > my
> > > > > 2 cents worth. Hope it helps.
> > > > >
> > > > > Patrick
> > > > > seaboardempire -AT- earthlink.net
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> 
> 


Home | Main Index | Thread Index