After thoroughly digesting some great picture books on streamliners, I was wondering if the Santa Fe, like many other railroads, ever mixed their PA/PB engines with F units (or E units for that matter)? I was also enjoying a great CTC Board issue last year featuring a DRGW PA leading an F3B on a run into the Rockies out of Denver. Pretty cool looking and it got me to thinking I've never noticed SF doing this practice.
I've search through my D&H related images and books and did find photographs in the below book that shows a RS36/PA1 and RS11/PA1 combinations pulling passenger cars.
Harvey, interesting question! It's wise to never say never, I know that when they were new the big Alcos were kept in matched sets. It is very likely they were run at times with EMD units when necessary, but were almost always matched with other PAs. Exceptions could have been if a unit failed and a replacement had to be 'borrowed' from a train with EMD power, or severe shortages. Given that the PAs had specific assignments, they were run in pools where other PAs could be subsituted when necessary. I'm no history expert, but I can't recall any photos in my library of a PA/F lashup, it certainly wasn't typical.
Hi, Harvey, From my assorted research experience with Santa Fe over time, I concur with Warbonnet-Fan, for the reasons he stated. In my Santa Fe photo books by Morning Sun, I don't remember seeing PAs and Fs mixed in the same lashup.
For an unrelated Espee answer, I have seen pictures of PA/PBs with all kinds of E units, both A and B on passenger trains. I have also seen pictures of F7A/Bs with PA/Bs, but only on freight trains. I think the passenger trains did not get mixed units often, even on Espee.
Bill Pearce had great article in the February issue of MR on how to detail a Kato PA. He mentions in the article that the PAs had early turbocharger problems and were quickly reassigned the "unglamorous" duty of hauling mail. In Bill's picture of his Cajon Pass layout and the late David Haines' Raton Pass layout, the PA/PBs were hauling the train 7 & 8, the Fast Mail. Bill also mentions that Santa Fe was very image conscience and washed their trains after every trip. Based on that I would agree that you wouldn't see PA/PBs running with F units at least on the premier trains. I now own a second run Kato ABA set of PA/PBs, and it looks like I need to build myself a Fast Mail, or do some more research to see if the PA/PBs would be assigned to the Grand Canyon or El Capitan, circa 1951.
Santa Fe appears to have gone to great lengths to have the units match up. Other railroads did not. New Haven PAs were often seen paired with FM C-liners on passenger trains, for instance. Santa Fe also appears to have gone to great lengths to keep passenger and freight power segregated. Other roads did not. New Haven and Pennsy both used "passenger power" on freight, with New Haven classifying as dual-service certain locos that were passenger-only on some other roads. I have a picture of a Pennsy passenger shark down in the bowels of the Post Office complex, switching cars in the middle of the night, with a vigilant brakeman standing watch in the open rear door. Was there any job less glamourous?
I'll be one of those running NON prototypical Santa Fe power lash-ups. I've got one of the Kato PA/PB sets and one lone LL FM Erie A unit so that will be my A-B-A lash-up. They look very similar... so... some may not even notice the difference.
Some of the reasons for "gotchas" on that lashup - Santa Fe F's didn't have steam generators in the A units - only the B's. So A's were almost always set with at least one B even in a shorter train. PA's had a steam generator in the A's. So there were some really short passenger trains on ATSF that drew a single PA. Historically, the most common PA setup seemed to be ABA The PA A1A trucks (center axle idler) were speedsters but rotten mountain climbers, too. I'm not sure if they even had the same gearing as F's. ATSF had passenger, dual service, and freight gearing on certain units. The classic late 40's PA shots often feature a helper, including steam, taking them up Cajon or Raton. PA's also drew San Diegan duty for a bit mostly in AA sets. But name trains almost always drew EMD's in that era. I have one color postcard of a "Fast Mail" taken in the 60's, and the PA units were spewing smoke like crazy and relatively filthy. Santa Fe really didn't like the 251 prime movers and did the one EMD replacement project before they gave up entirely. I've got one Vanishing Vistas postcard that also shows them on a massive (ABBBA?) San Francisco Chief with all PA's and a long dome. Magnificent! Not sure of the year but it had to be about the last regular name train assignment of the PA's.
As WarbonnetFan stated "Never say never". This raises a question of my own. What with the different gearing given passenger and freight diesels. How could they be run together? If the passenger loco were being used as a freight hauler it's possible it would be run below its min. safe operating speed. If the freight loco was used for passenger service, would it keep up? This is explaned in the Feb. issue of Trains regarding the conversion of F40's into freight haulers.
Santa Fe, at least, painted the gear ratios on the front frame of locomotives so that hostlers didn't mix gear ratios in an MU consist. The quick answer was that 'you didn't'. They would behave differently under MU conditions - if not damage the motors then at least be ineffective. The traction motor speed is relatively consistent from throttle notch to throttle notch, but remember that the "62:15" ratios painted on the frame are main gear to pinion, so the axle RPM's would be different.
I have a photo of a Wabash PA teamed with an E7 on a passenger train . . . I've seen other similar pics from other roads over the years. Dunno about ATSF ...
This raises questions: were MU cables standardized, so that an Alco could run with an EMD? Even if cables were standard, wouldn't locos from different makers run differently? Or would each loco require an engineer, as with steam?
The only reason DRGW mixed the PA with an F unit was that the other PA units had already broken. Those PAs really were a HUGE disappointment to the operations division. No guts at all, and it would pull up lame if someone sneezed. The picture you saw was of the Yampa Valley Mail, and was hardly a crack train. Think of the F unit as a spare engine for when the PA crapped out. Combine this with the RS3, which was better at puking it's oil out than pulling a train, and you have a real problem selling new units to the railroad! EMD was king after that on the D&RGW... Tony Burzio San Diego, CA
SD70BNSF, Santa Fe often assigned PA1 power to the Fast Mail Express trains. You would be admired by the rivet-counters if you assembled a Fast Mail train with PA1s for power. While I don't know this for a fact, it seems that El Capitan, in every Santa Fe Morning Sun book I have, has either E units (in the early days) or passenger Fs on the point. Being an extra fare 'name train', this makes sense. Almost every shot of the Super Chief that I've seen also has either E units (in the early days), or passenger Fs. Conversely, the San Francisco Chief, despite being trains number 1 and 2 on the Santa Fe timetable, are often photo'ed in the Morning Sun books with PA1s on the point. Go figure. Maybe it had something to do with the fact that the San Francisco Chief as well as the Fast Mail Expresses always took the southern, less steep Santa Fe transcontinental route through Amarillo; the Super Chief, Chief, and El Capitan name Santa Fe passenger trains took the northern Raton Pass transcontinental route with it's steep 3% grades.
Pete Nolan, I'm no expert on the topic, but here are my *guesses* based on my variety of research. Ready to stand corrected. I believe that MU cables and MU control were relatively standardized at least between Alcos and EMDs. (as a contrast, many (but not all) Baldwin diesels had different MU systems and could not run with EMDs and Alcos). And certainly, Santa Fe used Alco RSD5s and RSD7s as helpers ahead of their Santa Fe F units on Raton pass in the early and mid 1950s, so along with a very very occasional Santa Fe photo showing the EMD F and Alco PA1 combination, there's evidence out there that an in that early 1950s era, Alcos could run with an EMD. If the units were MU'd together, you would not need a separate engineer team. I'd like to hear more about this interesting point that Randgust made that about what would the behavior of differently geared locomotives behave like in a MU'd consist.
Couple errors in the post above: As reported in more than one publication (including the book PA - Alco's Glamour Girl), the Santa Fe PA's were very good mountain climbers, noticeably better than the F-3's. As such, EMD was forced to go back and rather quickly upgrade the F-3 to the F-7 model. The GE traction motors in the PA's really excelled in mountainous territory, and it was the mountain railroads that ordered more of them than anyone else. Also--the PA's did not have the 251 engine, but the less durable, earlier designed 244 engine. In fact, the Santa Fe Alligator RSD-15's which did have 251 engines were basically reliable, fine engines--faster in mountain territory and better at maintaining braking and train speed coming down Cajon Pass than the EMD SD-24's (as documented by the locomotive engineers like Tom Campbell, who operated them over Cajon). The Alligators excelled in low speed drag service, and after 15 years on Santa Fe, 12 of them went on to work for many more years for other railroads in that service. Five of those twelve survive today. The only PA's that ever had 251 engines were the 4 rebuilt by Morrison-Knudson during the 1970's for D&H.
What a way to dig up a zombie thread, and then attack one of the most knowlagable members here. Prove your claims.
-Any open topic may be resurrected at any time. -I do not see an "attack" here. I doubt a previous poster such as John Sing would either. Additional information or corrections are not attacks. -I already see citations in the post to back up some of his points. And indeed such as the 244 statement is correct. -A 'throw down the gauntlet' style challenge, ("Prove your claims"), is not at all helpful. A thoughtful or inquisitive post works much better. Boxcab E50 A TrainBoard Administrator
I read a article in classic trains I think that also said they were excellent in the mountains. I also read that Alco rushed the 244 into production and soured many railroads before they brought out the improved 251 engine. On a related Q, would a E unit ever be mixxed with a set of F's on the Santa Fe? Kevin
