[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
PC: Correction - white frames and worms
- Subject: PC: Correction - white frames and worms
- From: "Armstrong, John A" <ArmstronJA@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 10:31:46 -0400
- Content-return: allowed
I missed a few typo's - soory it has been a long weekend.
> From: Armstrong, John A[SMTP:ArmstronJA -AT- corning.com]
> Reply To: penn-central -AT- smellycat.com
> Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2001 10:01 AM
> To: 'penn-central -AT- smellycat.com'
> Subject: RE: PC: Re: white frames and worms
> First of all, the NYC may have considered these unit U30B's. As I have said many times, railroads call locomotives lots of thing, some less than 100% accurate. As we used to say when I sold locomotives for a living, they are their units, let them call them what they want.
> None of the NYC U30B's were built in 1966. The first unit arrived in February of 1967. You type a great deal of conjecture, much of it inaccurate and treat this as fact. Volume does not take the place of fact.
> So what was GE testing if it was not the 3300 hp rating? The carbody configuration? I assure you that I am not basing my argument on Athearn's model.
> With any of locomotives I use two tests. If I were going to order parts for one, what would I do? The answer is order parts for a U33B. If I were going to model one what would I base it on? A U33B. Not one thing you have said changes these basic facts. All you have proved is that the NYC called them U30B's! Frankly, who cars what they called them, they were almost dead ringers for U33B's and a long way from then current U30B's
> As far as the rest goes, who said anything about the P&LE? Yes the late U25B and the early U28B share the same carbody. The late U28B and the early U30B also share a similar carbody. Nobody is debating this or for that mater, even mentioned it.
> Your discussion of the U34CH is accurate on one point, they are based on the U36C (and predate them by almost a year). Beyond that, you are just repeating an inaccuracy that has floated around the railfan community for years. The U34CH was rated at 3430 HP. However, the 170 difference between the 3600 and 3430 was not due to head end power loss. It was due to the fact that GE need to reduce the prime mover's (diesel engine) RPM to give the head end alternator the correct RPM to produce the right cycle. The best the engine could produce at this rpm was 3430. In fact, horsepower for traction could be as low as 2700 hp if pulling a sizable fleet of cars. 170 hp would not have been enough to light and heat/cool much more that one car. Yet the fans continue to accept this inaccurate explanation as gospel. Another example is the often published accounts of Altoona assembling the SD80MAC's. They were painted and tested there, but built in London.
> As far as the M640 goes, you are missing the point. Even though it was built as and delivered at 4000 hp, CP chose to class it the same as the M636 fleet. This was done by a carrier that generally changes the class for every order of units delivered. You cannot rely on what the railroad calls the unit.
> > ----------
> > From: ERIE LACKAWANNA SD45-2[SMTP:ERIE-LACKAWANNA -AT- prodigy.net]
> > Reply To: penn-central -AT- smellycat.com
> > Sent: Friday, May 25, 2001 6:26 PM
> > To: penn-central -AT- smellycat.com
> > Subject: Re: PC: Re: white frames and worms
> > If NYC thiought they were U33B's which they never owned they would have been
> > classed GF33's. As stated before the NYC never owned any higher than 3000 HP
> > and U33 was not made to the tme U30 was produced. The "B" series are
> > totally much different than the U series. Odd, the NYC was then the "only"
> > road to have only two U33B "looking" units while everyone else waa still
> > getting U30's? Hey, P&LE had U25B's too. Wrong. They were U28B's. EMD had
> > been using "body sharing" for the past 51 years where they all look a like,
> > than fan and radiator placement. GE is no different to this. The body does
> > not change the or HP. In my NYC and early PC ETT nowhere are restrictions>
> > stated for a class GF33. This data is 100% more accurate than what railfans
> > believe a model "may" be based on appearence. No one knows their engines
> > better than the owning railroad as they paid for what they ordered. NYC did
> > not exist long when U33B production started in 1967 when NYC bought ten>
> > C430's as last and final power under that name. 2830-2888 were built in>
> > 1966. Radiator openings as seen from roof of 2858 are smaller than what is
> > on the U33B. U33B's also sound different than 2858 and ither U30B's, If you
> > think 2858 is a U33B because Athearn says so, fine. Remember they also calld
> > their SW9 an SW-1500
> > in a year when no such model was even planned. NYC did own two U28B's
> > 2822-2823 numbered on top of PLE assigned U28B's 2600-2821. NYC U28B's had
> > U28/30B style bodies.
> > As for CP, if they wanted a 3600 HP unit they would have bought an M636 and
> > not a more expensive M640 wih 3600 HP. The M640 made the railfan press when
> > new as the back then only 4000 HP hood unit. Alco cataloged a C640 with wide
> > nose but ceased production before it could be ordered.
> > Is a U34CH really such a model? No. It is a U36C in non-passenger mode and
> > derated 180 HP when HEP is cut in for passenger use dropping HP to 3420.
> > But GE does clearly state on builder plate that the unit is 3420 HP than
> > 3600 HP.
Main Index |