No, you're right on the engine block being the 244's. The odd part is that with the 251's announced (and their experience with them) that ATSF still stuffed 567's in them as the rebuild project when they did the PA EMD repowerings in '54 (I think). I interpret that as a rejection of the 251 in favor of the EMD 567, maybe not, because like you say, they left the 251's in there forever on the RSD15's, never did anything to those. Still puzzled why they did that instead of put in 251's like MK did. And, like you say, in justice, I can't find any evidence that ATSF ever pulled PA's to a lower-grade route EXCEPT that they held on to the San Francisco Chief assignment relatively late AND the "Fast Mail" (both southern route instead of Raton), but yeah, they did lots of time over Raton/Glorietta in their prime, too. I interpret that that they wanted to keep the PA's off of Raton... at least in the later years, admittedly rather subjective in whether or not that's due to the A1A trucks, age, all of the above.... I'll never, ever, diss GE/Westinghouse traction motors though! And seeing a rebuilt PA with anything in it (Doyle's) is still on my bucket list. Something sticks in my mind that I've seen a shot with Alco boosters mixed in with EMD E-unit cabs in one shot in the "Trackside Santa Fe" book.... I'll have to check that - won't stick to that one just yet. But that's one of the best reference books I've seen on photographic proof of oddball consists, it has several favorites in it. Hey, I've been wrong before. The most spectacular one lately has been the photo in Myrick's "Santa Fe to Phoenix" with the F7's lashed up with an SD24. I've been told in no uncertain terms that won't work, photos or not, as the sanders and MU's weren't compatible, so the SD24 was likely under tow. Crow for one please? To go?
The GE traction motors were/are tough, no doubt about it. The brushes are 30% bigger than the EMDs. When the PA's and other early diesels were built there was not a standard MU pin out. ALCo used a 21 pin MU jumper. I know for a fact that Fairbanks Morse did not, FM used a 19 pin jumper and Baldwin didn't even use the electrical system for the MU at all. Locomotives of the same builder didn't always match up from railroad to railroad. The pooling of locomotives is a relatively recent development. There wasn't a standard for locomotive MU until the AAR stepped in and established MU pinouts. Locomotives were freely being exchanged from one railroad to another and causing all sorts of electrical problems. The Erie and the Lackawanna E-8s were not even compatible because one or the other used air actuated sanders and the other used MU electric sanders. There's another issue to consider when consisting locomotives. Gear ratios could forbid running in multiple ... say an RS-1 with a PA. The PA was geared 61-22 (117 MPH) and the RS-1 may have been 75-16 or 60 MPH. If this consist exceeded 60 mph there is a danger that the RS-1 traction motor would come apart. I do not believe that the ATSF PA's were electrically compatible with the EMDs as most EMD were either 21 or 27 pin and the pins were wired differently. For example on an EMD pin 4 is the MU negative, on an older Alco pin 4 was governer speed solonoid D. Randy Stahl
I also recall reading that article on the Alco PA which was in a Classic Trains magazine. I no longer have the issue, but web searches tell me it was the Winter 2008 issue. My recollection is that they said that Santa Fe had very few E-units, and that they found that the Alco PA had better mountain performance (tractive effort??) than EMD E-Units - not sure if that article compared the PA to F-units in that regard. I do have a copy of the Kalmbach book on E-units, which mentions that AT&SF had bought samples of the E1 (all 11 of them), E3, E6, and E8. If you are thinking of MU-ing an E-unit with PAs, and are concerned about looking prototypical, the earlier E1s, E3s, and E6s all have the older shovelnose front, while the newer E8s had what for most of us is the more familiar bulldog nose. I found this web page which lists the numbers and types of various diesel locos that AT&SF had: http://spazioinwind.libero.it/cajon/roster/sfdiesel.htm
Can't find anything odd with PA's, but my memory did click in one area: "Santa Fe Trackside" with Bill Gibson, page 29, a 1957 shot of the Chicagoan with E8-AM #87, what looks like an E6B, and what is clearly an Alco DL109 booster as the third unit. They only had one of 'em! Had to look it up in McMillan's book, they retired them in 1960, and in McMillans book there's a shot of the DL-109A unit with what looks like an E-3B behind it on page 114. So maybe not a fluke.
Philip R. Hastings photographed DL-109 #50 with an E7 booster bringing the Ranger through Houston, Texas toward Galveston in July 1948. (Railfan & Railroad, November 1979 p.38-39.) The Ranger was then the secondary train over the same route as the Texas Chief. #50 and an unmatching booster (NOT 50A) is shown pulling the Chicagoan across Sibley Bridge over the Missouri River, year unknown, in Iron Horses of the Santa Fe Trail p.402. The same photo is printed with a Santa Fe diesel roster in Railroad magazine, August 1971 p.54.
>The pooling of locomotives is a relatively recent development. There wasn't a standard for locomotive MU until the AAR stepped in and established MU pinouts. It was more so restrictions placed on railroads by builders that kept run-through locomotives being seen. The relatively small Georgia Railroad and its affiliates that formed the West Point Route (Atlanta & West Point and Western Railway of Alabama) were a good example... EMD would not allow their units from one operation operate on the other, despite common ownership. On the other hand, Southern Railway System roads appeared to not keep engines limited to the road they were built for, possibly because of the System aspect of the roads.
As far as using PA's in the mountians. The largest owner of PA-PB's the Southern Pacific used them almost exclusively on the Overland route between Ogden and Oakland. This is one of the most mountainous routes in the USA. I would call that a endorsement for their mountain climbing abilities.
I am a very old guy at 64 and like a lot of my fellow train guys out there have quite a fleet of locos accumulated over a wide span of years. I can testify that many times removing diesels from my shelf to run, I wonder if any EMD diesel can be lashed up with an Alco, or GE for that matter. Then my old memory kicks in plus my tendency to try to be even remotely accurate, I say naaaaaahhhhhh. Even as a kid, I used to watch big Pennsy six axle sharknose type diesels bring iron ore into Sharon Steel Co and never seeing an EMD. Same down here if FLA, there are never mixed manufacturer units on trains passing through towns. I have posed this very question because it has never been addressed and believe me when I pose this very question, the answers and replies are varied as appear on this thread. I have a large shelf of books in my workroom and not one picture of an integrated diesel train, despite virtual hours of poring. I think the basic question I is very basic" can you run an F7A with an FAB unit? I know my mental abilities and sharpness seem to be diminishing, but I am still as confused right now today as I have been over the years. Based on the findings of this thread it reads to me, "OK, sorta" As President/CEO of the Bessemer Shenango Valley railroad, I would like to be somewhat sure before I assign the lashup. I am not trying to step on any toes here, I am just in the dark on this subject. Ken "FloridaBoy" Willaman
Jerry,I can see EMD taking the stand that EMD will not be responsible for the damage if the locomotives are interchanged offline. In-compatable MU systems can cause a lot of damage. In my own experience I can attest to major damage to ATSF SD45's on the Wisconsin Central. We were running 9 ex CMStP&P SDL-39s that used pin 19 for an MU bell. When you turned the bell switch on, the design energized pin 19 and rang all of the bells in the consist equipped with electric bells. When we (WC) bought a fleet of ATSF SD-45's we were not allowed to MU them because as we discovered sometime later the Santa Fe used pin 19 as an extra negative. When an SDL-39 was in the lead and the engineer turned on the bell, there was a direct short and many wires in the MU bundle would burn. Circuit breakers would catch fire etc. Usually pin 19 is a spare and not used, it is not allocated for use by the AAR currently. We would often handle locomotives from steel mills and plant switch engines and we would damage both locomotives if the MU systems were not compatible. I remember some ALCo S-2s that were at Nekoosa paper that weren't even close to the MU systems we used. Not only did we burn out the wiring on the GP-40 that we used to pick it up but we also ruined the wiring on the ALCo. We had a bulletin out that told the crews not to MU with older locomotives at all. Early diesel years must have been a nightmare for the electricians. I know that in time 27 pin MU sockets were installed on older locomotives and the problems gradually went away. The PRR is a good example, PRR used yellow dots on the FM Erie builts to signify that a 27 pin jumper has been installed and wired to MU with the rest of the fleet. I'm certain that other railroads followed suit and modified the fleet to work together. Randy Stahl
Yeah, exactly. I get the feeling that prior to the FRA and the AAR standards being applied, that things were done that 'sort of' worked - and that may explain some of the strange photos I've seen like the EMD E-units + Alco DL109's, yet little if any evidence of Alco PA's plus anything else - which is puzzling. And I have personal recollections and photos of EL mu'ing F7B's with SD45-2's in 1975, which by most accounts would suffer the same problems. EL certainly regeared their PA's for freight, and from some of the photos I've seen, MU"d them with whatever was handy until they retired them. As I was looking through some more photos last night (looking at ATSF PA shots is not exactly pennance..) I'm still struck with how homogenous they really were, still not sure I understand why - MU, gearing, something else? I'm beginning to conclude that prior to the FRA rulings that everything HAD to work right from the cab and standardization that you could 'get away' in some cases with the MU working, sorta, maybe, and not everything necessarily worked 100% (dynamic brake controls on all units, sanders on all units...) and some cases, yeah, ZAP, something could go horribly, terribly wrong. And not all railroads did it the same, and not all builders did it the same. Knew about Baldwin vs. everybody else, but nothing about differences within individual railroads and even within EMD. And this forum is really useful, because nobody thinks of this stuff now with the level of locomotive standardization and interchange going on now. I knew, for example, that ATSF had high MU plugs on the GP's so they could MU with the F-units, but didn't know that early GP's and F's couldn't easily MU with later EMD's because of the sander and dynamic brake pinouts differences. Which explains a lot! As my son the software engineer is fond of saying: "The problem with standards is that everybody has one".
I actually just looked at some pics of Santa Fe PA's and I cannot see any nose mounted MU receptacles. I assume at some point they were added but it looks like as built a PA could not be MU'ed in a consist unless it was the lead or the trail unit. Looking at the MK rebuilt D&H engines it does appear that they have the standard 27 pin Mu installed.
I know I'm late to the party but... WHY couldnt they make an "Adapter' that fit the second unit that the first unit could connect to. The adapter would have the right wiring sequence the second unit needed from the first unit. If the first units #1 pin was the second units#5 pin...the crossover would be done in the 'adapter". If your pin#4 was the second units pin#8... well...you get the picture. I am sure there are some things in the second unit that arent/werent required to work (bathroom light?). If you had a 27 pin and the second had a 19 pin...the adapter would fit the second units 19 pin receptacle and your 27 pin cable would plug into the adapter. I know I am a simple mided SOB...been told that numerous times. It just seems like it woulda fixed a lot of problems....and saved a lot of electrical wiring and work back at the shop. Just sayin....thnxs .
I talked with one of my resident Alco-expert friends this morning, who is also smarter than the average bear on ATSF practices as well. He's worked on Alco locomotives a good portion of his professional life. 1) The DL109's, being oddballs and only a couple, were retro'd to MU with the E-units. Not your imagination. 2) The Alco PA's had Alco-style MU's, but there were so many of them that ATSF felt no need to make them compatible with anything else. They didn't see 'standard' MU until they were rebuilt by D&H/MK, and were MU'd with various power including SDP40F's during that era. 3) MU problems with all Alcos were CHRONIC, and even on merged roads, caused problems. Ex-Lackawanna RS-units couldn't MU with ex-Erie RS-units in the Erie Lackawanna. Different MU pinnings, as the Erie units were commuter power. And the story about old EMD's not MU'ing with newer EMD's on ATSF is true as well. (hadn't heard that one before!) 4) His memory was that ATSF had way more ongoing issues with curvature on the PA's than grade climbing abilities with the long six-axle truck wheelbase, and that 'may' be the reason they took southern route trains instead of over Raton. 5) EL redid the MU's on their own F-units and PA's to match newer EMD practice when they were regeared, not stock MU. And finally, his theory on the 244 vs. 251 upgrade was that ATSF 'really' didn't like the 244 and the 567 was the only show in town in 1954 when they upgraded the three PA's to EMD prime movers. ATSF never took delivery on their first 251-engined power (the RSD15, until after that, with the purchase decision likely in 1955.....) so repowered with an 'unproven' 251 in 1954 wasn't very likely. And,... yeah, this makes sense. Well, I learned a lot!
It may be a matter of having the right adapter in the right place at the right time. The way it sounds is that you may have needed a dozen (or more) different adapter MU cables at all of your stations. I'd feel sorry for the guy that accidently plugged in the wrong cable and got himself caught between or run over. Randy Randy
Just for kicks in case anyone is interested, heres the AAR MU pinout list. pin # 1 Power reduction setup (if used) 2 Alarm 3 D valve (throttle) 4 Control negative 5 Emergency sanding 6 Generator Field 7 C valve (throttle) 8 Forward 9 Reverse 10 Wheel slip (light) 11 Spare 12 B valve (throttle) 13 Control positive 14 Parking brake applied status (on newer locomotives with electric parking brake) 15 A valve (throttle) 16 Engine run (ER Relay) 17 Dynamic brake setup 18 Unit selector (if used) 19 Spare or ATSF control negative 20 Dynamic brake warning light 21 Dynamic brake setup 22 Air compressor synchronization 23 Manual sand 24 Dynamic brake trainline potential excitation 25 Headlight 26 Spare 27 Spare Randy
Understood..but... Logic says there had to be a way...a safe way to do it. Like I said...my over simplistic mind at work again. .
I've learned a lot from this thread. I'll be paying more attention to how I lash up my early diesels from now on, I've got to go through my Santa Fe books and see if I can find a photo of H16-44's and EMD's together. There was an occasion here a few years ago of a double headed steam excursion where the newbie dispatcher only rostered one crew on duty because he thought the two engines could be MUed.
West, don't forget, just because they are together does not mean they are MU'ed...I have a picture of a pair of SP H12-44's....they did not have MU...
That reminded me of a photo in Joe McMillan's Santa Fe's Diesel Fleet of 1975, so I dug it out to have a look. It shows a freight climbing Cajon Pass in 1962 with 14 units on the point, an ABBBBA set of freight F's, a GP7, a PA1 and what looks like a BBABBB set of passenger F's. It's likely not all are MU'ed and the passenger units may even be dead in tow, but they are all coupled together on the front of the train so it must have looked impressive whether they were all working or not. Someone may have already mentioned the combination but the above book also has a photo of Erie-Built 90 coupled to PB 57A. Somewhere, maybe in the special instructions that appeared in employee timetables, there must be a list of what could be MU'ed with what. Having adapter plugs would not have been very practical as they would go astray and not be there when needed but the 'plug it in and see what happens' approach wouldn't have been good operating practice either.
