http://www.frisco.org/shipit/index.php?threads/the-day-the-music-died.10953/#post-69537 Moving some of the discussion from this thread to a new one. Attached is for a lack of a better word, is a partial abstract for a a work in progress. In essence, I believe that Frisco had the facts in hand to make a better motive power than it did when it bought the E-units. As much as we love our Redbirds, the Frisco's limited capital was better employed elsewhere.
Looking forward to the finished product. There will no doubt be some good (if moot) information there. GS
During 1946, John Barriger’s Monon RR used surplus US Army hospital cars to rebuild its post-war fleet. Who says the shop forces in West Springfield could not have done something similar?
Well, Soo Line did it and a few others like Wabash and Lehigh Valley sprinkled in heavyweight cars liberally, but I doubt whether a heavyweight TEXAS SPECIAL would have been able to compete effectively with the TEXAS EAGLE. On the other hand, the METEOR and FLSP really did not face any direct competition on their routes and might have gotten away with a non-streamlined offering. The absence of direct competition between New Orleans, Houston, Phoenix and Los Angeles is what allowed Southern Pacific to get away with running a SUNSET LIMITED with no domes. GS
True, and they could have rebuilt and refurbished their heavyweight cars. I was really surprised that they did not have more passenger traffic during the war; I thought that with gas rationing/driving restrictions passenger traffic hit all-time highs, but apparently that was not the case on the Frisco.
I don't believe that modernity of the cars was the principal problem. To be sure, clean, comfortable, well maintained cars are a must. No one wants to ride in something that looks as if it came from the previous century. The Pullman, dining car, full lounge, land-ship model was obsolete by war's end and an easy target for the automobile. Perhaps more "Firefly's" would have been a better investment. During 1936, the Frisco stepped outside the box, and it apparently dabbled with some type of "intermodal" passenger service, which also shipped the passengers' automobile. The Annual Report's description is incomplete, and we are left to wonder about the details of this service.
I recall well the modernized, wide window heavyweight coaches that were often found on #9 and #4, the two trains I rode most often between StL and Rolla, 1960-1964. They were pretty nice, modernized interior, etc. Six wheel trucks gave them a smooth ride! Seats were comfortable. I recall one Friday night ride on #4 where I spread everything out on the double seat and studied for a calculus exam that I had coming up on the following Monday. It was the Math 8 book as I recall, so it must have been Spring, 1965 timing. K
About 1965, my dad took a coach railroad trip to Idaho and back. He told me the Frisco coaches/chair cars were much more clean, comfortable and smooth than any of the Union Pacific cars he rode in! The Frisco in the 1960's wasn't exactly a Toonerville Trolley operation... Tom G.
Greg - Ha! I don't recall specifically what happened on that exam! All I recall was that I didn't like the professor I had for Math 8 - he did not explain things logically. Fortunately, the text book was a very good one, which made up for the prof - somebody bought that book in our recent estate sale, which I regret. But I do recall I aced the course. I was always good at math, and became fascinated with the world of calculus. I aced every calculus course I took. Later, when we got into "diffy Q" and some other advanced courses, things got a bit more complex! As did the results. My MSM degree was in chemical engineering with a math minor. K
Karl - Thoroughly riveted by the abstract and supporting data thus far, and am eagerly awaiting more as this continues to gel. Adding to your analysis thus far: if I recall reading correctly, the single-purpose E units were traded in to EMD shortly after the demise of the Southland. Dual purpose units lasted longer on the SL-SF, into the 1970s. I can't remember, but I think (presume) the boiler-equipped GP-7s and FP-7s and F-7Bs were traded in as well for what I would guess would be a lesser trade-in value on a unit with more miles and wear. Still, I would have to guess that the return on investment would have been much better for the dual-purpose units than the Redbirds - not to mention the lower maintenance costs you've noted for single-units with dual prime movers. One would think that if the Frisco had gone with FP-7 / F-7B / FP-7 combos, the return on investment would have been greater. Might never know the actual numbers in the absence of exact purchase prices, but what you've outlined makes a very compelling case. Best Regards,
Chris - Generally,when passenger power was no longer needed, the E-units (and PA's) were either sold to other roads that still needed passenger service (example - several Frisco E's were sold to the L&N), or were traded in on new freight power. The E's and PA's rode on three axle trucks, but the center axle was not powered, just an idler. The six wheel trucks gave a smoother ride and were more stable at high speeds. But, the idle axle and the relatively high gearing did not allow the E's to provide good freight service. A few roads used them for some freight applications, but it was not a very good fit, and didn't last long. And, as you noted, you have two engines per unit to service on the E's. (Alco PA's only had one). K
The only advantage I can see to FP7s versus E-units is that the F-units could be more easily re-purposed following the end of passenger service. However, the E-units that were re-sold had likely been fully or near-fully depreciated, so whatever the L&N paid for them was essentially found money. GS
Amen. However, the L&N got some useful service out of the Frisco E's they bought. I think a few of them even saw some Amtrak service for a few months. K
FYI, the Frisco E's that were sold to the L&N were: (Ref: Dr Lou Marre's Frisco diesel bible) SLSF 2000, E7, became L&N 782 SLSF 2002, E7, became L&N 783 SLSF 2004, E7, became L&N 784 SLSF 2007, E8, became L&N 787, became Amtrak 226 SLSF 2009, E8, became L&N 785 SLSF 2014, E8, became L&N 788, became Amtrak 227 SLSF 2015, E8, became L&N 786 I was always surprised that the L&N bought E7's! Likely there were no more E8's the Frisco made available. The sales to the L&N were in 1965; the two E8's moved to Amtrak in 1971. K
Interestingly, Louisville & Nashville owned 45 FP7s (600-634 and 663-672). What do you suppose they saw (or thought they saw) in those used E-units? Incidentally, L&N operated a fairly crappy train into St. Louis in the late 1960s, and it always had a E-unit fronting a single baggage-exoress car and a single coach. GS
I remember eating dinner in the "L&N Cafe" close to the depot in Mt Vernon, IL on our way back from Florida back in the early 1960's when the L&N train came through for a stop. I thought it looked pretty cool as it was behind an E6, but following, as Greg suggested, were a few ragged looking blue heavyweights. K
Two words; availability... cost. I doubt that there very many FP units available for sale in the second-hand market, if at all at that time. During the mid 60's, it was a buyers market for second-hand passenger motive power, and I'd wager that the L&N bought the Frisco E's for a song. Need to dig-up my Annual Reports to see what terms the Frisco bonds for that purchase were. It's a fair guess that the Frisco bought it's E-8's with funds generated by 20 year bonds. It's likely that the Frisco still owed money to the bond holders, when the units were sold and when passenger service died. The dual service nature of the FP-units is no mere trifle. The lack of other use for any passenger unit, certainly lowered its resale value in the very limited second-hand passenger diesel market. Given my hypothetical FP-7/F-7B/FP-7 via pair of E-8's, I see these advantages: 1. Lower initial cost, 2. Higher horsepower per prime mover, i.e., 3 primer movers vs 4 prime movers...fuel and maintenance savings 3. Higher tractive effort 4. Better suited to the Frisco passenger operations
