Railroad Forums 

  • High Nose Locomotives

  • General discussion about locomotives, rolling stock, and equipment
General discussion about locomotives, rolling stock, and equipment

Moderator: John_Perkowski

 #188934  by MEC407
 
On early diesels, they often housed the steam generator which provided heat for the passenger cars.

In later, non-passenger locomotives equipped with high noses, it was thought that perhaps this offered better crew protection in the event of a collision (at the expense of visibility, though). At least the crew had a bit more headroom if the unit was equipped with a toilet in the nose.

 #227232  by Malley
 
Some early Diesels were run long hood forward, steam engine style. (B&O and N&W come to mind) That being the case, the height of the short hood didn't matter too much.
Malley

 #227396  by LCJ
 
More info on this subject:

All New York Central GP7, GP9, and RS11 units were long hood forward with high short hoods. The GP20s and RS34s were Central's first short hood leading hood units, I believe, coming along in the early '60s. Both models had the more modern low short hoods with better visibility for crews.

PRR had some RSD15s that were short hood lead with high short hoods, but their RSD12s were operated long hood lead.

 #237472  by GN 599
 
All of the high noses Ive been in have tool racks and alot of toilet room. I think some of the ex-CB&Q SD-9's were equipped with steam generators. My uncle says "they (GN) ran those engines long hood forward in those days like steam, so when you bounced into the ditch or something you wouldn't get hurt''.

 #237473  by GN 599
 
All of the high noses Ive been in have tool racks and alot of toilet room. I think some of the ex-CB&Q SD-9's were equipped with steam generators. My uncle says "they (GN) ran those engines long hood forward in those days like steam, so when you bounced into the ditch or something you wouldn't get hurt''.

 #237694  by UPRR engineer
 
Sir Ray wrote:Our very own 'Tuch' claims it's toilets in the wide noses:
LOL Where was that statement going? ............. :-D

 #237696  by UPRR engineer
 
GN 599 wrote:My uncle says "they (GN) ran those engines long hood forward in those days like steam, so when you bounced into the ditch or something you wouldn't get hurt''.
Wouldnt get hurt, long hood forward provides more in a collision, but i dont think you could say you wouldnt get hurt. As far as going in the ditch, ive saw the after math of units sliding on there side, long hood forward or not, your gonna get messed up. Lay on the floor, put your coat over your head, try to protect your head with your arms. Pretty scary stuff to talk about.

 #237727  by GN 599
 
Yeah I know what you mean. In Jan 05 we had a crew go into a track at 40 mph. The house track at Bieber got left open and a Northbounder went in, hit the derail then bounced off some grain cars. The lead motor left the rails at a right angle putting their Dash 9 on its side. The rest of the motors and the train came to rest behind them. Fortunately they walked away but are still off injured. I think that safety cab made a difference. There are probably pics of it on the web.

 #237824  by Jtgshu
 
On most, if not all, EMD's the "front" of the prime mover is opposite the "front" of the locomotive (F end) - at least most locomotives where teh short nose is front.

The Accessory end, which has the water pumps, oil pumps, air compressor, all those goodies is at the rear of the Long Hood, while the Generator end of the prime mover, is towards the short hood end of the loco.

I was told its set up this way because thats how it was 55 years ago when the first GP's rolled out, and they were set up as the Long Hood being the front of the loco, so they designed the engine bay accordingly.

To any EMD experts..........Is there any truth to this?????? It sounds logical enough!