Exterior detail differences, EP-4 and EF-3

[chnhrr]

I know there were some mechanical differences between the EP-4 and EF-3, but I was wondering about some of the differences in exterior detailing, despite both units looking similar. I include photo of both types as reference.

A) Door placement. I’m assuming this the result of different cab configurations. The doors on the EF-3 also seemed to be recessed further from the face of the exterior wall.

B) Grab bar types. The type on the EP-4 may have been an aesthetic gesture while the ones on the EF-3 were better for freight operations?

C) Roof access rung locations in relation to the cab door

D) Locations of number boards are different

E) Sizes of grilles or louvers are different

F) Types of cab access ladders are quite different

G) Roof details differ. The EF-3 has what appear to be small scuppers along the edge.

[Allen Hazen]

Interesting topic. Are the main dimensions (length, height, width) the same?
As for the grab bars beside the cab doors being sunk in slots on the EP-4: could this be a clearance thing? The EP-4 had to meet the constraints of operation in Grand Central, whereas the EF-3 was an "outdoor" locomotive (o.k., they sometimes operated into Penn Station, but maybe GCT had a tighter loading gauge?).
Another visible difference: EP-4 has third-rail pickups (visible by front truk in the photos you posted), whereas the straight-AC EF-3 doesn't.

--

Electrically and mechanically, the EF-3 is pretty much a clone of the Pennsylvania's GG-1, but the underframe design (shape of casting) is unlike that on the GG-1, and similar to that used on the EP-4 (and before that on GE's straight-DC locomotives for Cleveland Union Terminal-- probably also the same as the EP-3, but I haven't looked at photos to compare details).

[DutchRailnut]

biggest difference is third rail gear on pony trucks of EP-4, the EF-3 did not have third rail capability.

[CannaScrews]

The nose door of the EF-3 is recessed compared to the EF-4.

[Tadman]

Great pictures! I love electric motors from that era. Streamlined carbody mounted atop steam-type 4-6+6-4 running gear fit for a Challenger makes for an interesting look - certainly a fast and powerful one.

[Allen Hazen]

How about some interior details? Different carbody (maybe the GG-1 was a registered trademark of the PRR?), but underneath is the EF-3 essentially the same thing as a PRR GG-1 (with maybe lower speed gearing)?

[Statkowski]

Underneath the EP-4 is essentially the same as an EF-3, or a PRR GG-1, or a CUT/NYC P-1 or P-2: a 2-C+C-2 wheel arrangement. Motors may have varied somewhat, as with the gearing, but the ride in the cab at speed was the same - smooth as silk.

[Allen Hazen]

Statkowski--
Thanks! GE certainly hit on a good thing when they designed the 4-6-6-4 undercarriage for the C.U.T. locomotives! Ride quality was even to some degree scientifically tested: PRR borrowed a New Haven EP-3 for tests, using instrumented track to record the forces the locomotive imposed on the track structure at speed… and thought the results justified ordering the
GG-1.

The C.U.T.locomotives were DC. The EP-3 and EP-4 were "bicourant," capable of operating on either AC or DC, and were somewhat lower in horsepower than the EF-3 and the GG-1. (I think the EP-4 was described as a 3600 hp locomotive.) Of the New Haven locomotives, I thought the EF-3 was the closest to the GG-1: straight AC, high horsepower (EF-3 rated at 5000, which isn't that far from the GG-1's rated 4620). So I thought it was the most likely to share, eg., motor types with the GG-1.

(The EF-3 is also like the GG-1 in being built both by GE and by Westinghouse.)

[Noel Weaver]

I did not have too many cab rides in the old NYC "P" Motors but I rode them enough to know that they were a hard riding engine. There were many differences in ride quality in the various motors of the 4-6-6-4 wheel arrangement. The best riding of them all was probably the PRR GG-1 and the second best riding was the NHRR 350 class "Flat Bottoms". The 360 class "Streamliners" rode nowhere near as well as the other two mentioned first here. As for the 150 class freight motors, I don't know as they were retired before I went in to engine service in early 1960. The GG-1 was a very smooth riding locomotive but having said that, they were also quite uncomfortable as there were many places where you would bump your head on them, they were very hot in the summer and very, very cold in the winter. They had two not very effective electric cab heaters where as the NHRR 350's and 360's had a big row of steam pipes (radiators) in the cab on each end and we were toasty warm in cold weather with the boiler making lots of steam, yes it required some work for cab heat but at least we had cab heat on them. The 360's did nor ride anywhere near as good as the 350's with the box cab arrangement. The 360's were top heavy and the higher the cab the worse the ride. Of all the engines mentioned here the NYC "P" Motors were the worst riding of the bunch and in their later years they were used on trains that were not very heavy and that made the cab ride even worse. In their later years they had a speed restriction placed on them and that didn't help them any either.
Noel Weaver

[chnhrr]

Just following up on my minutia

Since the EP-4 was a forerunner of sorts to the EF-3, it’s possible that GE engineers and New Haven Engineering staff made some modifications to EF-3 design, besides the mechanical requirements for freight operations.

On EF-3 the cab roof length and door and roof access rung locations differ from end one end to the other. This must be the result of differences in each cab configuration. Grant it, the EF-3 did not need the small DC pantograph on the roof for GCT access.

The type of cab access ladder and recessed handrail channels shown on the EP-4s may have been difficult to use. The lack of consistency in the rung spacing and the more costly handrail channels and base ladders were not repeated in the EF-3. It should be noted that GE provided handrail channels for the EF-2 and EY-3.

The difference in louver sizes between the EP-4 and EF-3 was significant. Obviously the EP-4 motor's intense passenger duties required a greater cooling capacity.

The EF-3 scuppers along the roof edge might have resulted from the fact that the drainage system for the EP-4 roof depression proved inadequate. There are also seven portals over the main louver. I’m not sure what purpose they served.

As for the different locations of the number boards, all I can say there didn’t seem to a standard placement for these items at the time.

It’s interesting that New Haven contracted Baldwin Westinghouse to make to first lot of EP-3s. Possibly GE could not fulfill the initial order due to a wartime production demand?

[Allen Hazen]

The mixed build of the EF-3 -- half from GE and half from BLW-Westinghouse -- is another thing they have in common with the PRR's GG-1. I don't know if the components were literally interchangeable, but Westinghouse and GE made very similar electrical equipment, and about half the GG-1 fleet had machinery from each.