Is anyone aware of an active campaign to preserve an example of the GE
'Classic 'Dash-8 locomotive design ?

By way of explanation, the word 'Classic' refers to the first, or earlier design.

Dave

Esthetically, I would argue "classic" and "Dash-8" are antonyms and the two together are an oxymoron. But, hey, some folks love Alco Centuries, the boxier and more misshapen the better............

I will leave the analysis of the mechanical merits, or lack thereof, to those with more experience (Brother Levin?), but the last time I photographed a trio of Dash Eights was a set of CSX ex-Conrail 6600s(?) pulling a stone train out of a quarry in Augusta, Georgia while I was en route to Waycross, and the crew actually came to me and asked "Why the *&()$# are you photographing these #%$*+!@ pieces of $#!+?!?!?"

There was a thread about this a bit earlier:

http://rypn.sunserver.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=19965&highlight=shrine

The lingering question for me is why something being considered "good" or "bad" on its technical merits (difficult to service, other reasons for un-reliability) is a reason not to preserve it.

Why is this?

In the broader study of the history of technology the study of "failure" is considered to be as valuable, if not more valuable, for understanding the research and development process and how the technology was used (or misused) in service.

It also does not factor into consideration for listing to the national historic register http://www.cr.nps.gov/nr/listing.htm - the defacto standard for preservation evaluation by preservationists in all fields.

So - Please help me to understand this? I would think that the story of these locomotives would make the preservation of these locomotives a priority. -- The story of how Jack Welch sought to make GE the number 1 locomotive builder. The experience of the classic dash-8 locomotives shows that this was not a pre-determined outcome - and might not have happened. Moreover, these early locomotives show the first incarnation of microprocessor controls - a still evolving technology?

Tom Cornillie

Because they're too damn big, that's why.

As someone who has also studied disaster response and preparation, and more specifically cause and effect of "disasters" (i.e. to hell with Jack and Whatzername in "Titanic", did bad rivets doom the ship when it hit the iceberg?), I wholeheartedly agree that "those who do not study the past are doomed to repeat it".

But we are also running either static museums or operating railroads here. If you're running the former, putting actual examples of failure (the Ingalls Shipbuilding 4-S? A PRR T1? the N&W Jawn Henry? an Automat dining car?) in a exhibit hall basicaly turns the presentation into a "freak show." (Imagine if I put together an auto museum with the Tucker, the Yugo, the airplane car, the Ford Pinto....... well, you get my drift.) And do you want to run an excursion operation with stuff that didn't work right the first time? (Well, there IS the Whitewater Valley RR's fleet of Limas.........)

Yes, it's important to study the "also-ran" ideas. But a locomotive take up MUCH more space than, say, a Beta VCR, or a Kodak Disc camera, or.......

Lol, just remember one man's garbage is another man's treasure. That question could've have been asked by a crew manning C630s circa 1977.

The term 'Classic' is used by GETS Engineering types to denote a certain production run of Dash-8 locomotives. I couldn't say off the top of my head what models are being described or what railroads own them. I do know that the C32-8's were not the only example and that a good number of that group were resold and put into service.

As Brother Cornellie made many salient points, I'll not repeat them.

I am curious as to why the preservation community finds certain pieces of equipment to be 'sexy' and will work hard towards 'rescue' of one or more examples. Yet, in other cases, other items seem to elicit nothing more than a yawn and quietly disappear from the scene.

Dave

BTW: There were a good number of C-630's and C-636's that went to a re-seller and were offered for sale at a reasonable price. The preserved RDG C-630 was the only survivor of that group. In contrast, it appeared that the C-628's all went right to the scrap dealer via trade-ins.

Mr. Mitchell has convinced me, the Whitewater Valley should scrap all the Lima Hamiltons and buy a like number of EMD switchers. He obviously knows everything there is to know about Lima-Hamiltons...

David Farlow
Chief Mechanical Officer
Whitewater Valley Railroad

And what is wrong with Alco Centuries? I think the C-420 is a pretty sleek machine-

There were lots of lumps and bumps on every builders steam locomotives, all of which served a purpose. If you took off the domes, feedwater heaters, stacks, bells, etc. they might look a lot cleaner, but they wouldn't work as well, if at all.

Um, guys, let's get off the Aesthetic Branch and back onto the Dash-8 Division....

I suspect the reason for lack of preservation of these locos and their EMD contemporaries, is that simply put, locos built after 1980 or so are worth too much in the used loco market. They are either runners and therefore worth upwards of $100-150K, or they are parts-on-the-hoof, and worth plenty as many useable pieces. It seems that the used loco market is tight right now-- there are few old GPs around, and lots of GP7s and 9s are becoming Green Goat frames.

So, for Dash 8s and GP40-2s and their ilk, you'll be competing against the loco parts/rebuild outfits, and the regionals and shortlines. And both have much more money than any of us guys.

My opinion only, your mileage may vary. Batteries not included, some assembly required, void where prohibited. Have a nice day!

Howard P.
Partsarama, CT.

What I took away from the previous discusion (linked to in my last message in this thread) is that there existed a number of individuals who were basing the decision not to preserve something solely because they considered it to be a failure (in some aspect). I can fully appreciate the market demand aspects and the opporunity costs arguements - but these apply to many other preservation cases as well.

Tom Cornillie

PS - David, I am sure that you will also be dumping all those Stillwells for Budd cars equipped with HEP or Stadco generators. Why waste your time with all those steam-heated, DC, rust-buckets.

I have to laugh at the comments of the crew. I personally have a strong dislike at having to work with one of CSX's old dash 7's. Partly because they are in their death throes, being "run to failure", and not being very well-maintained, partly because the walkways and doorways were designed for midgets, and you can't walk back past the radiator vents without getting dirty.

As for the relative value of various older diesels, CSX generally carries things like GP and SD 40's at over double the value of similar horsepower and age GE's. I was having a discussion with a railfan trainmaster one night about this, and he has access to the system that keeps track of that stuff, so he looked up a couple of examples.

As for more current things, give me a BNSF CW44-9 over just about anything CSX owns. Great seats, electric refrigerators, windshield defrosters, AND windshield washers. Beats having to climb out on the short hood with a bottle of drinking water and some paper towels to clean the windshield of what had been a trailing unit.

To which I will reply, tongue-in-cheek of course, "When all you have is a hammer, pretty soon everything looks like a nail......" <:-)

Paul's comments are instructive.

What is considered "good" or "bad" is relative to comparisons made in a specific point in time. In this case it is two different different designs of GE locomotives. Having comments from an engineer, machinist, road foreman, etc - places a context for understanding what was good or bad about a design at a particular place in time. However, having the actual locomotive - ideally in as close to the condition it left service - is invaluable for future generations in developing their own understanding about what was or was not successful about a particular design.

In my own study of locomotive maintenance, I have found it very useful to look at lubrication systems, electrical cabinets and continue to seek out details about rebuilding programs (for both steam and diesel locomotives). Having the ability to actually go and see what I am reading about in Railway Age articles and company reports is invaluable understanding the significance of past events.

I have no doubt that in the future, researchers (including this one) will want to better understand why a whole generation of GE locomotives were considered junk - written accounts, no matter how descriptive, will only go so far in answering this question.

Tom Cornillie