[Date Prev][Date Next] [Chronological] [Thread] [Top]

RE: (erielack) E8 conversions

 Randy Brown wrote:

> To say that they used the same motors might be to 
> oversimplify a bit.  If they applied larger wheels to 
> accommodate larger gears, that meant larger gear cases -- 
> which meant different gear cases.  Then, larger bull gears on 
> the axles usually meant smaller pinions on the motor shafts, 
> which would have meant pulling the motor from the casing, 
> pulling the armature from the motor, pulling the pinion from 
> the armature, installing the new pinion, re-installing the 
> armature, and hoping the motor would fit the new gear casing 
> and that the gear-to-gear distance would be correct.  And all 
> this while changing wheels.
> 
> Of course, they knew before starting what would work.  I'll 
> bet they used the whole motor, gear and casing assembly as a 
> trade in for a  whole new assembly which they dropped in.

I am led to understand that they used motors already on the units.  Yes, they had to change both the
bull gear and the pinion, but there's no reason to assume, Randy, that the center to center distance
between the armature and the axle was different.  In fact, it's my understanding that this was one
reason for the establishment of the various gear ratios which were available.  I don't recall the
proper ratios, so I'll make up a couple, but a 16/60 might have the same c-to-c distance as a 20/48.
(Just so as to be clear to everybody, I'm sure that those are bogus combinations, but they serve, I
think, to make the point.)
 
> Finally, they didn't re-gear all of the E-8s.  Maybe it 
> wasn't worth it?

I believe a few were kept in passenger trim for business train service.

SGL


	The Erie Lackawanna Mailing List
	Sponsored by the ELH&TS
	http://www.elhts.org

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