Subject:
|
Re: No big Deal: B-Unit for 10020 Super Chief
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.trains
|
Date:
|
Tue, 26 Feb 2002 04:48:41 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1025 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.trains, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.trains, James Trobaugh writes:
> >
> > Looks good to me Ben. So basicly the B-unit cost twice as much as the
> > A-unit?! Hmmmm, how are the B-units supposed to be a good deal for the
> > railways :)
>
> Um, they're not. It just took some stubborn railways a while to learn that.
Union rules. Back when, anything with a number was a loco. Since a B unit had
no number, it was not a loco, hence not needing a crew...
That's why you see 300F, 300A, 300 B, 300C for example on a ABBA arrangement of
F units (IIRC, that was SF's way around it...other railways did the same
dodge). In other words, the railway sacrificed a lot of the flexablilty of the
diesel to get the reduced crew. (They would have been drawbared too, rather
than loose coupled...so, when one of the 4 needed work, all were sidelined. It
was a _miracle_ that with diesel maintance like that, they ever overtook
steam...at roughly 8x the cost for the same HP at speed...more expensive
fuel...)
James P (who knows _too much_ about some useless railway trivia...and needs to
learn more about 16 ton mineral waggons (BR))
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
9 Messages in This Thread:
 
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
