RE: (erielack) GP35, U25B, and Alcos

["Paul R. Tupaczewski" <paultup_@_optonline.net>]

> 2.)  In 1969, 3-unit lashups of GP35, U25B, and/or C424/5 
> were still common, 
> in any combination.  By the way, this was a change from the 
> 1963-66 period, 
> when these units tended to operate in matched sets.  (I know 
> this only from 
> the photos I have seen, including Mike Schleigh's photos 
> taken around Cuba.)

The EL, and many other roads, seemed to like keeping "like" units
matched up. Some theorized that matched units should perform better than
co-mingled units of different builders. Of course, after a while, the
practicality of mixing units overrode this ideal.

 
> 3.)  After 1969, 2-unit SD45 consists became much more 
> common.  The five unit 
> lashups of F's and GP's became rare, and the 3-unit lashups 
> of four-axle 2500 
> HP units became less common.  This process accelerated after 
> the SD45-2s 
> arrived.

Big reasons for this: larger fuel tanks, roughly equivalent 3-for-2
power replacement (2 SD45s - 7200 HP, 3 four-axles - 7500 HP), greater
tractive effort of six-axle units.



> 4.)  After about 1970 the C424 became rare on the through 
> trains.  When an 
> Alco was spotted, it was usually a C425.  I presume that this 
> had something 
> to do with assignment of the C424s to drag or local service.

It seems that way in photographs. I am curious, however, as to why the
C425s were pretty much road units, never really relegated to the gritty
service the C424s were put into...

 
> 5.)  After EL's bankruptcy, United Parcel Service reportedly 
> increased its 
> monitoring of power assignments on the trains it used.  Also, 
> 1973 and early 
> 1974 were all-time record years for EL piggyback volume.  So 
> it became common 
> to see a 2500 four-axle unit tucked in behind two SD45s on 
> CSX-99.  If I had 
> to guess at percentages, I'd say that 50% of the time this 
> was a GP35, 35% of 
> the time it was a U25B, and 15% it was a C425.

I think around this time that maintenance was being simplified (i.e.,
"it's OK, no need for preventative maintenance.")  A friend of mine who
is familiar with the situation back then says that both builders were
telling EL that their maintenance was substandard, compared to what the
builders recommended. Apparently, there were many failures with the
SD45s - but as the "premier" motiver power, these were usually addressed
first.

The extra 4-axle tucked in there was undoubtedly for "protect" power.
This is why you'd also catch F-units (A's and B's) tossed into similar
lashups. Odd looking, but great for modeling! :)

 
> As UPS became more insistent and these trains grew larger 
> with the piggyback 
> boom, the third unit often became an SD45.  

What's funny is that as a kid, I very clearly remember 3-unit SD45
lashups rolling through Boonton on pig trains quite regularly (1974-1976
timeframe)


 
> 6.)  Power assigned to through freights I saw in 1975 was completely 
> unpredictable.

But again, this is great for us modelers! :)


 
> Query:  Urban legend has it that the C424 with its undersized 
> generator is a 
> weak sister compared to the C425.  This may even be true.  
> Why, then, did EL 
> leave the C424s in ore drag service and in other tough grade 
> territory like 
> Scranton and the B&P?

That's a darn good question! I wonder this myself. Some of the thoughts
that came to mind were: 1) lease arrangements - "beating" on the C425s
might not have been a good thing with the lease ending right before CR;
2) the 2500 HP of the C425 was more "mate-able" with the 2500 HP GP35s
and U25Bs; 3) Larger generator may have been better suited to fast road
freights?

	- Paul

------------------------------