The postwar E unit nose

filmteknik · **Posted:** Thu Jun 23, 2011 2:48 pm

The noses of E7's 8's and 9's look pretty much the same as the F unit nose. But is it exactly the same nose? These things were built up out of many small pieces (that were hammered out on wood dies, I understand), welded up and ground smooth. As they were built did they then get applied to E's and F's interchangeably or is there some difference which is not readily apparent?

Steve

daylight4449 · **Posted:** Thu Jun 23, 2011 3:43 pm

filmteknik wrote:

The noses of E7's 8's and 9's look pretty much the same as the F unit nose. But is it exactly the same nose? These things were built up out of many small pieces (that were hammered out on wood dies, I understand), welded up and ground smooth. As they were built did they then get applied to E's and F's interchangeably or is there some difference which is not readily apparent?

Steve

Speaking cosmetically, they are exactly the same. If they were to be cut from the body and put next to another nose removed from and F-unit, you would need an expert to discern the difference. Overall, they can be considered structurally similar, but there has been a handful of variants, such as the ones seen in Australia and Europe
Some websites with info I found:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulldog_nose
http://exotic.railfan.net/E.htm

I also found some pictures of foreign units with bulldog noses:
http://exotic.railfan.net/E.htm

CREEPING DEATH · **Joined:** Sun Oct 24, 2010 6:22 pm **Posts:** 275

The difference is usually the number boards. On an E unit, they're curved glass and flush with the nose. On an F, they're protruding and have flat glass. Some E units might have F type number boards, but I don't know of any Fs with E type noses.

CD

MEC_557 · **Posted:** Thu Jun 23, 2011 6:42 pm

Didn't some of the earlier E units have a more sloped front going down to the pilot?

Here's one that shows what I mean, http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/showPicture.aspx?id=2384198

Howard P. · **Posted:** Thu Jun 23, 2011 6:50 pm

Prewar E-units had the pronounced slope to the nose. They usually had the small number boards; some were retrofitted in later years with large F-style ones for better visibility.

Starting with the 1945 E7, the "bulldog" nose as introduced on the FT locomotives became the standard for the remaining E production.

Early E7 locomotives had the same small numberboard and class lamp combo as used on the FT, F2 and early F3. Many railroads preferred the larger 45-degree number boxes, and many late E7s had those.

The 1950 E8 body design was significantly different than the earlier Es (the bell was no longer recessed into the roof behind the cab, for example) and used a flush, curved glass to cover the number boxes. E9 was the same.

Pilots are another source of infinte variation on Es and some Fs. A careful perusing of EMDs Catalog 90 shows why someone once referred to EMD as "Every Model Different". There was a LOT of variation, both as new and as refitted during a unit's service life.

Howard P.

SR6900 · **Posted:** Thu Jun 23, 2011 7:51 pm

Though they may be similar, it does look like the nose is at least another foot or two longer on the E's, compared to the F's I don't have drawings handy to back this up, but I do remember looking at this at one time.

davew833 · **Posted:** Thu Jun 23, 2011 9:27 pm

Speaking of E-unit noses, I always wondered about the phenomenon of the C&NW "Crandall Cab" E9's that were homebuilt by C&NW in the early '70s from ex-UP "B" units with a homely fabricated cab. It seems to me that by then there would have been a fair number of E- and F-units going to scrap that could have donated a "proper" EMD cab to the project.

Of course M. H. Crandall wouldn't have been remembered with the same fondness if his creation had looked like any other EMD E-unit.

railfan44 · **Posted:** Fri Jun 24, 2011 12:56 am

Why did C&NW build cabs at all when they had a couple perfectly good examples across town on how to do it even more cheaply?

Jdelhaye · **Posted:** Fri Jun 24, 2011 1:32 am

railfan44 wrote:

Why did C&NW build cabs at all when they had a couple perfectly good examples across town on how to do it even more cheaply?

Why? Protection for the crew in case of a grade crossing accident!
I'd much rather ride higher up, with a nose full of collision posts, than low down, right at semi-cab height.

Jeff

Alexander D. Mitchell IV · **Posted:** Fri Jun 24, 2011 7:20 am

railfan44 wrote:

Why did C&NW build cabs at all when they had a couple perfectly good examples across town on how to do it even more cheaply?

Doesn't count. Rock Island had these two AB6 units built this way by EMD for the two sections of the Rocky Mountain Rocket; they weren't in-house rebuilds.

filmteknik · **Posted:** Fri Jun 24, 2011 8:26 am

I think the point was just that it was a much simpler construction but the need for crossing protection is probably the reason they didn't go that route.

Strictly speaking, did Mr. Crandall design or supervise the conversion? I was never clear about that. Some say he was accorded the (dubious) honor because he died in the line of duty (trying to restart a commuter train engine in a blizzard).

So how long did ex-UP E's (Crandall or normal) last in C&NW commuter service? I presume they were still around when the RTA started but did they last into the Metra era? Any get RTA or Metra paint?

Steve

arjay3 · **Joined:** Fri Jul 22, 2005 9:50 pm **Posts:** 162

The EMD 90 catalog is the "bible" when it come to examining these type of questions for it is a wealth of information most fans are unaware of. Somewhere this has been digitized as I have seen it on a parts dealer (Power Rail) computer but I am not aware of this being available outside of the trade.
When you go to the body parts sections not only does it show all the plates that were used to construct the different EMD noses and what units they were applicable to but you can also discover that some noses were not put together using the same plates. The end result looked the same but they wern't put together the same. Also F3's had different windshields then F7's.
As I said all good stuff if interested in developement and history of the first generation diesels. There doesn't seem to be a really good forum to get into the real nuts and bolts history and construction variations of these first generation diesels.

Rich J

Howard P. wrote:

Prewar E-units had the pronounced slope to the nose. They usually had the small number boards; some were retrofitted in later years with large F-style ones for better visibility.

Starting with the 1945 E7, the "bulldog" nose as introduced on the FT locomotives became the standard for the remaining E production.

Early E7 locomotives had the same small numberboard and class lamp combo as used on the FT, F2 and early F3. Many railroads preferred the larger 45-degree number boxes, and many late E7s had those.

The 1950 E8 body design was significantly different than the earlier Es (the bell was no longer recessed into the roof behind the cab, for example) and used a flush, curved glass to cover the number boxes. E9 was the same.

Pilots are another source of infinte variation on Es and some Fs. A careful perusing of EMDs Catalog 90 shows why someone once referred to EMD as "Every Model Different". There was a LOT of variation, both as new and as refitted during a unit's service life.

Howard P.

davew833 · **Posted:** Fri Jun 24, 2011 3:49 pm

I've never seen a pic of the Crandall cab E-units in Metra paint- I don't think any lasted that long. However, at least one of the ex-UP E9A's-- UP #949 made it into RTA colors (essentially the same as METRA without the METRA logo) when UP re-acquired it for restoration in the late '80s.