John, Murray Dean and David Hanna's Canadian Pacific Diesel Locomotives states
that all through freights on the Vermont lines were to be handled by two
1500-HP units, to a maximum of 2200 tons per train. Three through freights were
run daily each way between Montreal and White River Junction, with two powered
by B&M units. CP therefore required four two-unit sets. Two additional two-unit
sets were acquired for peak freight volumes and spares for protection. In
practice the extra units could either be used in pairs, or broken up and added
to existing sets to make an ABA set. (I haven't seen examples of this either,
at least on Vermont lines, but it must have happened at some point.) CP cab
units never had m.u. connections at the front so B units were necessary to
permit flexibility.
Doug Hately has noted the reasons why CP chose Alcos. At the time CP had not
bought any EMD road units. The first ones came in 1950 when the GMD plant
opened in London.
The E8's were the only Vermont units not ordered from Alco. Dean and Hanna cite
two reasons why these were chosen instead of PA's. The E units carried two
steam generators and could heat ten cars, while the PA's had only one which
could heat eight cars. In addition CP wanted compatibility with B&M's E unit
fleet. Since these units ran to Boston where Alco's were unknown (on B&M),
servicing would likely have been more difficult with PA's. (Presumably White
River Jct learned to deal with CP's Alcos since they were there every day.) CP
ordered E7's in late 1948 and changed the order to E8's when the model was
introduced in early 1949. While the E8's turned out to be oddballs on CP's
roster of F units, that wasn't apparent when they were built because their
first F units weren't delivered until 1950 and initially used for freight. In
1951 CP's first F's passenger F units were delivered for mountain service. It
was only later that CP standardized on F units rather than E units for its
principal passenger trains. The reasons cited by Dean and Hanna are higher
traction for starting and on grades (the passenger pool was to include
transcontinental trains with mountain runs), greater water capacity for
heating, and less wheel and track wear than the A1A truck. When the E8's were
ordered in 1948 these considerations were well in the future so CP chose a
standard passenger model.
Don Thomas
----- Original Message -----
From: jshorvath10583
To: cpsig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Monday, June 26, 2006 3:13 PM
Subject: [cpsig] dieselization of the CPR's Vermont line
I've seen it written that the dieselization of the CPR's Vermont line,
which was apparently spread out over much of 1949 and concluded with
the delivery of the three E-8As from EMD in December of that year, was
a "test tube for diesels" on the CPR (to quote one book). If this is
indeed a true statement I wonder how much line-specific testing using
demonstrators or borrowed/leased units was done by the CPR to help
them in planning their motive-power purchases for this line and prior
to finalizing their orders with ALCo and EMD. Or was it all a paper
exercise based on years of experience with steam power? I say this
because the freight road power (ALCo) they wound up getting raises
interesting questions on at least two accounts that came to mind today.
First of all, the primary freight road power as we know consisted of
eight model FA-1 cab units and four model FB-1 booster units from
ALCo. In the conventional wisdom of that era, when multiple cab and
booster units were often thought of as one 'locomotive' (and numbered
as such on some railroads), I can only assume that this was envisaged
as four, three-unit (A-B-A) 'locomotives' and intended to be operated
as such. However I don't think I've ever seen a published photo of a
three-unit lashup of any kind (A-B-A or A-B-B) on any ca. 1949 road
freight on the CPR's Vermont line or connecting B&M trackage between
Wells River and WRJ. In addition, based on Wells River train register
data that Duane Goodman has graciously shared with us we can say with
certainty that no three-unit lashup appeared during a several-month
time frame that began on 31 October 1949 which was only a few months
after these locomotives were delivered (I believe these units were
delivered during the first half of 1949).
Can anyone shed some authoritative light on this subject? Did the CPR
do any actual tests to make them think they needed a three-unit, 4500
h.p. diesel locomotive on the freights operating on this line? Or did
they just assume they needed such 'locomotives' based on experience
with steam locomotives? Or was it just salesmanship of relatively new
and unknown technology? Are there any published photos of three-unit
lashups operating in the 1949 time frame?
FWIW, if the CPR based their order on the unverified assumption that a
three-unit lashup was needed and then found only two units would do
that wouldn't be the first time a railroad overestimated diesel needs
in those early diesel years. Neighboring B&M did the same thing with
their early EMD FT purchases, buying so as to create four-unit (A-B-B-
A), 5400 h.p. sets then realizing that was one unit too many for most
trains. So they purchased a whole bunch of EMD F-2As a few years later
to make three-unit A-B-A sets. Obviously it was easier for the CPR,
all they had to do was break up their sets and use A-A or A-B pairs
although I would assume having to turn the A-B pairs at each end of a
run was a bit of a pain they could have lived without. In any event, I
don't think I've ever seen this issue discussed w.r.t. the CPR's
Vermont line so thought it would be an interesting topic to raise.
BTW, I said at the outset there were two issues that came to mind
today about these ALCo FA-/FB-1s. The second is why the CPR ordered
ALCo cab units in the first place. The prevailing wisdom I've read
w.r.t. the CPR's diesel order for its Vermont operations was that it
was influenced, at least to some degree, by the diesel locomotives
already owned and operated by the B&M. That explains, for example, the
otherwise oddball (on the CPR's roster) purchase of the three EMD E-
8As which, supposedly, were ordered as E-7As to match the B&M units
that they would (and ultimately did) pool with. Perhaps the same
thought applied to the CPR's ordering RS-2 road switchers from ALCo
(the first of their kind on the CPR at the time) since this was a type
of unit owned by the B&M as well and certainly the two roads pooled
these units some on milk trains and through freights the Connecticut
River valley line. The CPR already owned ALCo/MLW S-2 switchers so to
purchase more for their Vermont operations made sense in addition to
the fact that it was a type of unit also owned by the B&M. But it is
curious to me what motivated the CPR to order its road freight units
from ALCo. It was not a type owned by the B&M (ever) or CPR (at that
time). Although these units were not pooled per se with the B&M they
certainly were serviced by that road at White River Junction and it
certainly would have been easier to perform even running maintenance
or light repairs if these units were EMD Fs with which the B&M shop
personnel would have been familiar. Perhaps it was a combination of
cost and delivery time coupled with an aggressive ALCo salesperson
that won out. Perhaps the fact that major maintenance of these units
was to be done in Canada and the CPR had some familiarity with
ALCo/MLW products played a role as well (I'm not sure if the CPR owned
any EMD/GMD power at all in early 1949). Does anyone have
authoritative information to shed light on this aspect, i.e. why did
the CPR purchase ALCo, and not EMD, road freight power for its Vermont
operations?
John S. Horvath
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.9.4/375 - Release Date: 25/06/2006
