RE: (erielack) Transfer Cabooses and Locomotives (long)

["Tupaczewski, Paul R (Paul)" <paultup_@_lucent.com>]

Alan Samostie asked:

> First, how many cabooses of this type were on the Erie and 
> DL&W rosters?
> (I missed that, if it was included in the previous messages).

Zilch for both. The Erie had some cupola-less wood hacks, but were these "transfer" hacks?

 
> Was this how they were used on the Erie / DL&W / EL?  Why wasn't a
> regular road caboose used -- too few in the fleet?  Obviously, bunk
> space wasn't necessary for these short jobs, but I imagine the
> conductors could have used them as office space for 
> completing waybills
> and other paperwork.  Did the conductors actually ride in the them, or
> were they just used to meet FRA requirements in the days 
> before flashing
> rear end devices?

Again, these seemed to be N&W influence. Conductors did ride in them, too!

 
> Around 1979 or 1980, Model Railroader ran an article on transfer
> cabooses.  While some railroads had respectable-looking custom-built
> transfer cabooses, others were literally shacks mounted on an old
> flatcar.  (The article mentioned that the slang terms "crummy" and
> "hack" for caboose may have come from these 
> less-than-luxurious cars). 
> However, if I recall correctly, even the custom-built ones 
> had long end
> platforms, like the shack-on-a-flatcar versions.  Was there a 
> particular
> reason for the long end platforms on a transfer caboose?

Usually the reason was that the cars were rebuilt from longer cars (boxcars, flats, etc.). The N&W transfer hacks, if memory serves me, were rebuilds from other cars. The EL ones followed the N&W car, and kept that big platform.

 
> What, then, are the characteristics of a "transfer locomotive" as
> opposed to a switcher or roadswitcher?  On page Alco-232, 
> Marre explains
> that "the units are equipped with transition-type control, which plain
> switchers lacked."  Was this the case for the EMD models as 
> well?  There
> seems to be more to the "transfer locomotive" designation than
> transition control, though...

Not really. Transfer locomotives were usually meant for drag service, towing around long strings of interchange cars between yards. Transition allowed them to move more easily over longer distances than the usual switcher.

 
> The Baldwin and Lima "transfer locomotives" were massive, and 
> seemed to
> be more closely related to FM's Train Master than to the EMD and Alco
> "transfer locomotives."  Was 2400 horsepower really necessary 
> to move a
> cut of freight cars between yards?  Some of the Baldwin and Lima
> versions were supercharged and had dynamic brakes... were these
> "expensive to maintain features" really necessary for this type of
> service, even if used in a hump yard?

Depends on the service. Remember, stopping a cut of loaded ore cars or hot metal cars being transferred would be GREATLY helped by options such as dynamic brakes. Also remember that the large Baldwin/Lima center-cabs usually ran solo, whereas the EMD/Alco transfer locomotives were multiple units.

It also depends on the railroad's power philosophy. The EL simply used its road power for transfer service. (the C424's in the Youngstown area are a good example of this)


> Were the Baldwin AS616s on the Erie originially intended for transfer
> service, or for road freight?  Did they operate in the Chicago area?

The AS616's were meant for drag service in the Pennsylvania hills, if memory serves me, a role they were well-suited for. Dunno what Erie used for transfer runs in Chicago, but my guess would be the ubiquitous west-end Alco FA's...

	- Paul

------------------------------