Electric MU configuration

For the most part it seems the electric New Haven MU’s we configured as such – motor unit and trailer, motor unit and trailer etc. I am assuming the trailer cars were not powered and only received electrical power for controls and lighting. The 4400 series cars seem to have departed from this concept with all cars having patogrpahs and motors, possibly to give the railroad greater flexibility. Did the New Haven ever consider a bus bar system similar to the Reading?
As for locomotives, the only electric locomotives that I have seen in photos traveling in a MU fashion are types EP-1, EF-1, EF-2 and EF-4. I haven’t seen the remaining types grouped as such, even though the EP-3’s look like they had MU connections at either end.
(Photo courtesy uconn)

The "Green Muts" had a four point jumper between motor car and trailers for lights, heat etc. In order to handle that jumper it was necessary to de-energize the circuit and that was accomplished in AC territory by lowering the pantographs and in DC territory by centering the reverse handle on the controller of all cars in the consist. This would result in no power in the four point jumper and it could be pulled or connected.
Years ago in Stamford an electrician would accompany the MUT crew while they were switching out MU's both the old green ones and the new stainless steel ones as well. Much of the time the MUT crew would tell the jumper puller to go get the coffee and for them and they would do the jumpers and this went on all night. The jumper puller was probably the number one electrician's job in Stamford.
This four point jumper made it un-necessary for a 11,000 volt bus between cars.
As for New Haven Railroad electric locomotives of the past, the 350 class EP-3 had MU connections but I don't think they were ever regularly used in MU operation either on passenger or freight trains. On the other hand the Westinghouse motors of the 300 class EP-2 had some motors that were equipped for MU operation. Engines 305 to 314 inclusive appear to have been equipped for MU operation and I remember seeing some of these motors on freight trains in the 1950's before the McGinnis bunch replaced them with diesels. I think they were usually operated in groups of threes. Once the freight diesels of 1956 and 1957 arrived and were put into service these WE motors reverted to the passenger pool until they were finally replaced with the first 30 FL-9's in 1957 and 1958.
Noel Weaver
Noel Weaver

Thanks Noel for the comprehensive background and history. Here is a picture of what I assume (wrongly or rightly) was a device for MU connections on EP-3s. Apparently the connecting unit was part of the original specification, but the NH didn’t see the need for much usage.

I have a photo of an EP-3 at Erie in 1931 showing the caps on the mu stand open, yet no wiring. I personally have yet to see a photo of mu'd EP-3s. The consensus seems to be it never happened. But then again, "Never say never, Mr. Bond."
As an aside, the GG1s never had mu capability until the 50s. They were however built to be retrofitted with mu.

Rick Abramson wrote:As an aside, the GG1s never had mu capability until the 50s. They were however built to be retrofitted with mu.

I have the instruction book (it is very thick with well over 200 pages and lots of drawings) and it has instructions for MU operation for P-5a's, Modified P-5a's and GG-1's. There were no air hoses on these engines in their early years but that did not prevent their MU operation as MU electrical equipment was on them apparently when they were built.
Noel Weaver

I stand corrected. Apparently, the GG1s could mu as built. I located in my collection a GE parts renewal catalog dated 7/41 which lists the mu receptacles. I have yet however to see a photo of double-headed GG1s prior to the mid-50s.

IIRC, the GG1s had to have a block placed on the throttle to prevent the engineer from opening up the GG1s to full throttle. Seems to me that doubleheaded GG1s were limited to about 75% of full throttleotherwise they would draw to much power and end up blowing circuit protection on the overhaed wire.

The 90 MPH geared GG-1's had a hinged cover that could be placed over notches 18 through 22. This was done when these particular units were used in freight service which the lower numbered ones were often used. The cover was hinged so it could be movd away from the high notches mentioned above. The overload on the 100 MPH GG-1's was set to trip at 3000 amps while the 90 MPH engines tripped at 2750 amps. They had a plate welded next to the controller reminding the engineer of the fact that they were geared for 90 rather than 100. The 100 MPH engines did not have a cover at any time over any of the notches on the controller.
There was no restriction on using the highest running notches on the 90 MPH engines in passenger service whether there was one or two on a particular train. The 100 MPH engines were sometimes doubleheaded and again there were no restrictions as to the notches used. When accelerating with these engines we had to watch the amperage to insure that it did not exceed 2750 or 3000 amps as the case may be.
The overhead on both the former PRR and the former NYNY&H at the time would often have more than one or two electric powered trains in a particular section. The overload on the engines of both types would trip long before the line breakers would trip.
Noel Weaver

If I remember correctly, the line breakers would kick out at 5,000 amps.

Statkowski wrote:If I remember correctly, the line breakers would kick out at 5,000 amps.

This sound somewhat more reasonable because even though we would draw very high amperage with the GG-1's occasionally, it was always only for a very short period of time. On a 70 MPH railroad it didn't take too long to get up to the speed needed to maintain the schedule.
Noel Weaver

I doub't the GG-1 or any other electric drew close to 5000 Amp at 12.5 Kv
The Amp meter on engines usually shows the Traction motor current, not primary transformer current.

DutchRailnut wrote:I doub't the GG-1 or any other electric drew close to 5000 Amp at 12.5 Kv
The Amp meter on engines usually shows the Traction motor current, not primary transformer current.

Absolutelly, I agree.
Noel Weaver

did New Haven Engineers have a consensus on their favorite 'motor'?

dogsboss wrote:did New Haven Engineers have a consensus on their favorite 'motor'?

I am not really sure about this one. Most of the engine crews liked the 350 class (flat bottoms), they rode well, gave thousands of trouble free miles, did a good job handling a train and had good boilers that were decent to operate as well. Unfortunately they were sent to scrap before their time because of one of the worst managements of any railroad in the history of the industry. The McGinnis/Alpert regime of the New Haven was terrible and worse. Almost nobody shed any tears when the railroad went into its final bankrupty and these bastards went away. More than just McGinnis and Bensen deserved jail time for sure.
Noel Weaver

Noel Weaver wrote: Unfortunately they were sent to scrap before their time because of one of the worst managements of any railroad in the history of the industry.
Noel Weaver

When you visit the B&O Museum in Baltimore and the Railroad Museum of Pennsylvania in Strasburg, you realize that there were railroad companies willing to save some equipment for posterity and future generations. The New Haven was not one of these firms. The desperate management of the NH was willing to scrap anything metal, including door knobs for the stations! It would have been nice to see a restored boxcab, EP-4, EP-5 or the great steam locos at the Danbury Railway Museum.