Blutorse4792
Now T:ANE I can get into
Which end was supposed to be the "front"?
ALCO RS series...
- Thread starter Blutorse4792
- Start date
Which end was supposed to be the "front"?
If you look on the far left, see that orange "F" on the right of the third step? That's the front. Easiest way to figure it out.
Blutorse4792
Now T:ANE I can get into
Y'know, I actually knew the "F" thing, but I didn't notice it in that picture.
Thanks all.
Thanks all.
cascaderailroad
New member
Running long hood forward (for collision protection) must have been very difficult ! No wonder they once had 3 man crews in the cab ... I don't know how in the world they ever operated GG1's as the loco car body eclipsed 90% of the engineer/conductor view
Blutorse4792
Now T:ANE I can get into
Yeah, the "J" had their SD9s specifically set up to run long-hood forward (for that very reason) when they were new.
I think that ended in the mid '70s when the '38s arrived.
I think that ended in the mid '70s when the '38s arrived.
Early model GP7 units were long-hood forward, too. So, I've heard anyways.
cascaderailroad
New member
I think it was based on actual data collected from many thousands of fatal/serious injury collisions between road and rail vehicles, and was not just based on superstition and unfounded fears for crew safety
Superstition or not, logically thinking the long-hood-forward concept makes sense because in a collision you want as much of stuff between you and the impact to absorb the energy. If a 10-ton engine block and alot of bodywork doesn't do that I don't know what will.
Thing with LHF is visibility becomes kind of a bummer.
Thing with LHF is visibility becomes kind of a bummer.
For example, the Northern Pacific ordered its RS-3s with the short hood as the front.
norfolksouthern37
what's a normal map?
I honestly don't think 'crew protection' was ever really a factor but an added benefit of operating with the long hood to the front.
If this were the case, then what reason would there to be to decrease crew visibility by a ton? I think crew safety was more than just a factor.
norfolksouthern37
what's a normal map?
It would depend on what locomotives were being discussed. For instance, the Alcos in this thread really do not benefit from any real visibility improvements no matter what way they are run, just like many early diesels. Their design is as a switcher with more or less equal visibility both ways unlike their full body streamlined counterparts from which they were evolved. The visibility is not affected as much as you might think, just sooner in one direction than the other. No chopped nose units with extra windows had ever been seen at the time. If you discuss locomotives that were initially designed to be run a certain direction, like a low nosed locomotive with a front windshield, the reasons for not having that part of the design are for savings of time and money by having them built to be bi-directional (NW and SOU) and thus not requiring the time to turn them. In any case, placing the cab and crew at a specific point does not seem to be a goal or a factor, but a simple result of the design. If that were really any significant factor then cabs would be in the center of the locomotives to offer the same protection either way. Now I am not saying that the idea didn't come up among the railroads or that it isn't true that it provides more protection, as that has been proven a few times, I am just saying I have my doubts as to whether it was ever a real deciding factor in designs or the preferences for having the long hood facing forward. It would be overly difficult (and $$$ consuming) to make sure that was always the case.
Last edited:
cascaderailroad
New member
N&W, and Southern RR, specifically started running long hood forward due to crews constantly hitting rural road vehicles (such as Billy Bob's speeding moonshine pickup truck that was loaded up with "Shine", that got totally schmizzened down at the local road rail crossing, when he dint' stop or even look both ways) .... crews were being injured by broken glass and metal, so they enacted the long hood running forward rule ... This is a FACT ! They dint' enact it just cauze they thought it looked kinda' schnazzy ... there were thousands of cases of collision factor data, that caused Company policy to enact long hood forward running. I'm sure RR Unions had a big say in enacting the policy !
Last edited:
norfolksouthern37
what's a normal map?
See it is precisely this kind of internet tall tale that keeps the misconceptions alive. What you said is hardly true in any form.
As I stated it was to save time and money, not to help protect the crew. Enzo had it partially correct in his question. Why decrease crew visibility? Shouldn't that be considered somewhat unsafe for them by potentially increasing collisions with things fouling the track like your tale truck above? not to mention what happens when reversing and going short high hood first? Now there is no protection and less visibilty... No, It is simply because it has little or nothing to do with crew safety. It has to do with locomotive operations and saving a buck. The crews didn't exactly take kindly to all of NW and Southern's, later NS's money saving schemes.
Last edited:
cascaderailroad
New member
So what you are saying is that the RR decided to run long hood forward for no safety reasons what so ever, and they just flipped a coin, and said: "Hey let's operate half blind", (requiring 2 crew members 4 eyes to see around the long obtrusive hood), because it is cheaper to install 1 control stand backwards, instead of 2 bi-directional control stands ?
What was the reasoning of long hood forward if not truely for collision safety ? Your argument just doesn't hold water. There was a safety issue, and a safety reasoning, and it was not just the old head, die hard, steam era mentality, long hood forward idea that made them decide long hood forward.
What was the reasoning of long hood forward if not truely for collision safety ? Your argument just doesn't hold water. There was a safety issue, and a safety reasoning, and it was not just the old head, die hard, steam era mentality, long hood forward idea that made them decide long hood forward.
simulatortrain
jointed freaking rails
This is most definitely not a fact. They had similar union agreements on some level that mandated the end of the locomotive with more glass lead so the crew could see better. So, equal glass on both ends, no need to turn.