I read somewhere that the FRA actually mandated putting the "F" and "B" on the diseasels. Someone wrote a book on the C&O's BL-2s, which Electro-Motive designed to run short hood forward. They had a low nose. There is an account in the book on how the visibility provided by the low nose saved a crew from a collision.
Seems like intense thread drift. Wasn't the original question regarding the differences between the models? Historically and technically it's answered, but if the OP was asking about the differences under the hood of the actual models, that's an entirely different area, because there's three generations of mechanisms and counting there. See http://www.spookshow.net/loco/atlasgp3035.html for the original kato drives, and the subsequent evolution of the chassis. The mid-generation Atlas classics, under all of them, are widespread, pull better, are often noisier, and usually have the higher-speed motor than current production. The major difference between the chassis are which fuel tank is appropriate, and how the cab headlight/nose headlight is handled, but the actual drive parts, trucks, and overall performance are pretty much identical. I'm a big fan of the original Kato drives, myself. Pull better and quieter than anything since, and they match up real well with original Kato 6-axle units.
Not entirely correct. The first diesels ran long hood forward because, following steam engine design, that was the way the controls were set up. Having two sets of controls in the cab was an option that came with a cost. Many RR's were not willing to pay the extra cost initialy for dual control stands so they ran them long hood forward as with the majority of steam engines. However, later it was realized that having dual controls so that the engine could be operated regardless which way it was facing was more versatile and eliminated the need to turn the engine. Recall that when operating an engine with the short hood forward the engineers controls would be on the left side of an engine designed to run long hood forward. However, all of the trackside signals would be on the right side of the locomotive (Most RR's were set up for right side running because on steam engines the engineer sat on the right side.) As for the high short hood, that was initially designed to accomodate a steam generator for versatility so that the same engines could also be used for passenger service. Later when most railroads were using their hood units for freight only the high short hood was unnecessary and started to disappear with the GP20 and the second generation. The N&W as well as the Southern and maybe a few others were hold outs and continued to order units with high short hoods and running long hood forward.
The Nickel Plate ran short hood forward all the way pack to 1958. When I worked there in 1964 to 1966 all ran short hood forward and all units had controls short hood forward as well as the fireman's and brakeman's seats. This did not change when the merger with the N&W took place and none of the N&W or Wabash units ran long hood forward. The short hood contained the sand tank and a toilet. The SWs FMs switchers were all oriented so the engineer was on the side of the switch ladder, so the long hood would be facing west on the east end of the yard as well as the west end for a yard on the north side of the main.
I think southern ran longhood and NW had dual control stands. They stopped running long hood after at least on wreck was determined to be caused by it. Similarly, high short hoods restrict visibility too much.
I am not an expert, but I thought all of the Geeps on the C&O ran short hood forward, at least from all of the pictures I have seen. Is there a website that has a list of short and long hood running sorted by individual railroads? Most of my locos are GP7/9.
Too much generalization in this. Some railroads led with the long hood. Many did not. Just look up GP7/9 on any railroad photo sharing site. Lots of historical pics of them running short hood forward.
Go back to what I posted. Railroads were set up for steam operations where the engineer sat on the right side of the cab. The trackside signals, which were crucial to operations before two way radio, were therefore set on the right side of the track so the engineers view of them would not be blocked by the boiler. Therefore most RR's were 'right side running' Running a train in the opposite direction was almost never done without some special considerations. Not only was the engineer on the wrong side but unless the signals were bidirectional he could not see them anyway. This was the world inherited by the diesels. So whether a diesel ran short hood forward or long hood forward was determined by where the engineer's control stand was located. On the first generation diesels the trend was to have just one control stand. This was especially true on the first orders for diesels. The control stand could be on either side or there could be dual control stands. The RR's could decide which side they wanted the single control stand and that determined whether they ran short or long hood forward. The PRR, B&O and NYC all ran long hood forward while the N&W initially ran short hood forward. Another thing to add. Different locomotive producers designated different ends as the front. EMD deginated the short hood as the front while Alco and Baldwin designated the long end (Can you tell which of the companies built stream engines and which one did not?) These were the default locations. A RR could change the location of the control stand or opt for an additional one but at additional cost. So if you bought a GP7 from EMD and did not pay the extra cost to move the control stand then you operated short hood forward. Also affecting the issue were the RR unions, at least initialy, and the elimination of the fireman possition on diesels.
Even looking at your favorite road's historical photos sometimes isn't clear without a bit of further research as to the long-hood/short-hood forward rules. For instance, the U.P. ran their GP-7's long hood forward, but ran their GP-9's short hood forward. Their GP-7's were never changed over to run short-hood forward and when both versions ran together, the lead engine ran facing whichever way was forward for it. Additionally, I really LOVE the way the high-hood Geeps look. My layout is chock-full-O-Geeps in my 1947 thru 1956 era and they're all high hood GP-7's and GP-9's with a couple of GP-9 B's. I really like a 35 car train being pulled by a lashup of Geeps, with a 3700 class Challenger pushing on the rear....WOW! Here's the Park City Local switching Echo on Park City Branch tracks...Oh YEAH!!! Love that high hood! Cheerio! Bob Gilmore
Very much so. I interpret the original question to mean visual differences. Which was long ago answered.
Actually,if you go back and read it again,he said "Atlas",not EMD..He wanted to know the physical difference between the models..I got the question right,no idea WHAT you guys are talking about....LOL!! Quote:"What is the primary difference between the GP7/9 Atlas locos and the GP 30/35/38/40?"
Yes,but he knew the visual differences,he stated he doesn't like the look of the GR7/9 compared to the others..He wanted to know if they were alike mechanically,what you can't see isn't obvious.. quote:"I just don't like the way the GP7/9's look. It's just an "artistic preference". Thank you for the history lesson - most interesting." William
Yea....there was a question asked... "I'm very curious if you've boiled it down to any specific reasons you don't like the GP7's and Gp9's as much? "....guess we all just sorta chimed in. Thread drift !!!!.....
AH-HA! Now it's my turn to contribute to the thread drift- I actually really like the look of the high short hood and, every once in a while, NS treats me to a local or switching move with a high hood as power.
Geeps, well to me they are all good! Like was said some roads used the high hoods and some didn't. That does not take away anything from running on the layout. It was a reflection of the times, not a reflection of capability.
