1955 - 1965 Era ... Wisconsin Loco's

[MR536]

I am a bit confused as to which types of loco's were used when the change was made from Steam to Diesel...I have been told everything from GP-20's too GP-40's on up

I am trying to keep this layout as it is called "scaled realism"  not going to throw just any loco on the track.  Appreciate the help

Marv

[Doneldon]

Marv-

The transition from steam to diesel actually ran from the early-1930s until the mid-1950s. Some railroads, notably the southwestern ones, began their transition quite early due to the availability of fuel (oil and diesel) in the area and the unavailability of nearby good water. (Severely alkaline water, such as is widely found in the southwest, wreaks havoc on steam locomotives.) The western railroads more generally also had much longer mainlines so they experienced much higher maintenance on their steam locos. Eastern railroads stayed with steam somewhat longer due to ready supplies of good water and coal, and the shorter mileages which their trains ran. Too, World War II affected the transition because new trains, and especially engines, require large quantities of defense critical materials like steel, iron and aluminum. So. You really can't think of the transition era as a short time or even as the same time on all railroads.You really must specify the railroad and the usage.

The earliest diesels were switchers because many trainmen figured that diesels would never be able to supplant steam for high speed trains or heavy tonnages. Following this, there were railroads which wanted to shift to economical motive power as soon as possible, and they most strongly implemented dieselization where the most money could be saved: freight trains. Other railroads saw early cab unit diesels as offering great potential for streamlining and a modern image for their passenger trains. This was important to railroads because much of a line's public image was due to passenger, rather than freight trains.

Well, I've introduced several variables affecting dieselization like location, water, fuel, need for economy, war materials, image. But I've said very little about what kinds of diesels appeared early on. I will try to help a little better.

As I mentioned, there were early diesel switchers. These were generally not very large engines, due to their job requirements, but they began to grow almost as soon as they appeared. Soon, some railroads began to use them over the road. Think Fairbanks Morse and Alco locos showing up in the 1930s. They were joined by some of the earliest EMD cab units like FAs, FTs and such like, and some of the early EMD switch engines like the SW1000. There were also some quasi-experimental or publicity diesel trains like the CB&Q's Pioneer Zephyr and the UP's M-10000. Progress was slowed by the depression and really slowed by the war. After the war there was a huge surge in dieselization. More cab units were developed like F3s, F7s and E-units. Road switchers proliferated rapidly, with one of the most successful units being the GP-7 and, a little later, the GP-9. This brings us up to 1950, give or take, and you can then project forward as diesels became more powerful and widespread.

Others on here are much more informed about railroad history than I am, I'm sure, but, hopefully, this will give you a general introduction. You'll be able to get more specific information if you can narrow your inquiry to specific railroads, areas or times.

                                                                                                                                        -- D

[jward]

as a general rule, the following would be appropriate for a steam era layout:

streamlined cab type diesels such as emd f units (ft, f7, etc) alco fa & pa, baldwin sharks.

most end cab switchers.

ge 44 and 45 ton center cabs.

hood type road switchers, with high short hood. emd gp7, gp9, fm h16-44, etc.

the low hood locomotives came along about 1960, and are too modern for your era.

also, the alco rs types are appripriate, just about any of them, for wisconsin.


overall, during this period, the most common types of locomotives running, and wisconsin would be no exception here, would have been f7, gp7 and gp9......

[MR536]

Many thanks to you both for this information.  Sorry I didn't specify the type of railroad as I didn't know which ran coal or gravel runs back then.  The theme I have developed is a combo coal & gravel industry.  Also included is a town with several shops and businesses that cater to these industries.  Space is important as this is a 4X8 that I started many months ago.  The era I wanted to use was between 1955 - 1965 as the downtown business district has many features from these years including transportation.

Once again...many thanks to both of you for your guidance....


Marv

[jettrainfan]

A GE-44 ton could fit the bill, for switching coal cars and the businesses on your layout. Get a few GP9s, or other 4 axle power and you got a mighty fine coal/gravel train layout

[Doneldon]

Marv-

If you are planning a prosperous railroad, dieselize. If it's to be like so many smaller pikes at that time, stay with coal powered steam. The little 44-tonner could be fine for an industry which might need its own power but I'd stay with a coal 2-8-2 or perhaps one of the road switchers suggested by jward. You can use an F-3 if you have any passenger trains planned, or stay with a coal 2-6-2 or 4-6-2 for passenger service. You'll have fun no matter which way you go.
                                                                                                                                    -- D

[jward]

A GE-44 ton could fit the bill, for switching coal cars and the businesses on your layout. Get a few GP9s, or other 4 axle power and you got a mighty fine coal/gravel train layout

not really.
44tonners were far too light for moving heavy loads like coal and gravel. in fact, most of the big railroads that bought them found they weren't much good  for anything but shuffling cars and locomotives around shop complexes. they were too underpowered for anything else.

consider a 44 tonner has about nhalf the hp of even the smaller switchers like the emd sw1, sw8, or alco s1/s3. coal roads tended to use the larger switchers like the s2/s4 or emd nw2, sw9, sw1200. even then, many lines had to use more than one.
western pa, where i live, was home to several shortlines which used emd sw9s in multiple to move coal.

for a larger road, gp7s, gp9s and rs3s would be ideal. they have enough power to do the job. and the rs3s could get down and lug. they were great pullers.

cab type units like the f7 would have stayed on the mainlines for the most part. they were very hard to see out of when making reverse switching moves.

[rogertra]

IIRC, the GE 44 tonner was designed to be under 45 tons so that it could be operated by one man.

At the time, engines weighing 45 tons or more required a fireman.

[ACY]

IIRC, the GE 44 tonner was designed to be under 45 tons so that it could be operated by one man.

At the time, engines weighing 45 tons or more required a fireman.

Roger you do recall correctly It was all about saving money.

[ebtnut]

In general, the responses here have been fine.  Main line steam essentially died in 1960 when the N&W dropped its final fires.  However, there was still a fair amount of steam around on secondary railroads, short lines, and industrial operations.  The D&RGW ran steam on its narrow guage division until the end of 1967.  Northwestern Steel and Wire in Illinois bought a bunch of Grand Trunk 0-8-0's for scrap, but kept a number of them running in plant service through the 1970's.  So there are precedents for running steam in your time frame.  Most of the diesels were still first generation and the various models noted previously are fine.  I don't see an issue with a 44-tonner moving two or three loads around.  More than that, though, and I agree that a larger end-cab switcher would be more appropriate.  An SW-1 would fill the bill nicely.  For steam power, the Bachmann 2-8-0 would be just fine.  Also, the Proto2000 USRA 0-6-0 would be another option to consider. 

[Doneldon]

ebt-

I saw the Northwestern Wire locos in the 70s. They were running as fireless cookers at that time. I don't know for sure if that was always the case. My friend who lives near there (Dixon, IL), says they were fired at one time, and they of course ran under their own steam for the GTW.

I agree that a 44-tonner would be fine for switching a few cars around an industry, even heavy stuff like coal, ore or stone. And let's face it, most of our industries really aren't sized for moving strings of anything around their plants or yards. The truth is, most of our industries can't even justify a siding much less locomotives. So we stretch the limits and using a 44-tonner with a few coal hoppers would be fully in keeping with that spirit.
                                                                                                                                                 -- D

[Jhanecker2]

I vaguely remember one of the lumber yards  using a Shay to move some lumber loads in Chicago off of track east of Clybourn Avenue  probably near Ravenswood  Avenue between Diversey and Wrightwood. This occured back in the early Seventies when that area was still mainly industrial .  Usually this was not visible from the street but somebody left one of the doors to the street entrance open and it was a rare sight indeed. J2

[rogertra]

ebt-

I saw the Northwestern Wire locos in the 70s. They were running as fireless cookers at that time. I don't know for sure if that was always the case. My friend who lives near there (Dixon, IL), says they were fired at one time, and they of course ran under their own steam for the GTW.                                                                                                                                                 -- D

Are you sure?  I thought they were single manned and oil fired until the end.  It would be awfully difficult and expensive to convert an oil or coal fired  steam locomotive into a fireless locomotive.

[Doneldon]

roger-

Yes, at least as regards their last few years. The last time I saw them was in the winter and they were carrying big loads of snow as they shuffled about their duties. I never saw steamers covered with snow like that and my friend, a rural northern Illinois native who lived nearby and whose wife worked in Dixon at the time, told me they were fireless. He's a lifelong model railroader (his dad ran scale 0 in the full basement of their huge ranch home, within site of the ATSF mainline on purpose) who knew what he was talking about.
                                                                                     -- D

[rogertra]

roger-

Yes, at least as regards their last few years. The last time I saw them was in the winter and they were carrying big loads of snow as they shuffled about their duties. I never saw steamers covered with snow like that and my friend, a rural northern Illinois native who lived nearby and whose wife worked in Dixon at the time, told me they were fireless. He's a lifelong model railroader (his dad ran scale 0 in the full basement of their huge ranch home, within site of the ATSF mainline on purpose) who knew what he was talking about.
                                                                                    -- D

I'm sorry but I have to disagree about being fireless.  

I was however,  incorrect on one point.  I said they were single manned and oil fired when in fact they were single manned and coal fired.

See this photo of No. 80, one of the last in service and you can clearly see that it still has its grates and a firebox, something no fireless locomotive ever had as the grates and a firebox allow air into tubes that would condense the steam in the boiler.  Infact, no fireless loco ever had tubes.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/8226029@N06/3245692152/

If you look closely, you can see the fire in the firebox.  Look at the "original" sized photo.

Ditto for engine No. 12 shown here.  Fire clearly visible: -

http://www.flickr.com/photos/8226029@N06/3244859579/in/photostream/