does anybody have any info confirming if SP&S Alco RS1 #50 and #51 weren't MU capable? I'm examining my SP&S locomotive diagram book, and am wondering about this because I saw a post somewhere stating that they weren't MU capable but the diagram makes no mention of this.
Early RS1's were not MU capable....at least none that I have found, so I would assume the SP&S ones would be no different. However I seem to recall pictures of SP&S RS1's running in consist with RS3's, so they may have been modified at a later date.......I'll do some checking when I get home tonight.
the received date in June 1945 and July 1945 respectively for SP&S #50 and #51, the loco diagram says usual service for both OE and SP&S loco's. transfers between vancouver and portland. I know #50 was stationed in vancouver but that's about it. this is puzzling, I will also do some checking.
I found a picture of #50 the date is 1971(?) I'm not seeing any MU hoses, which is odd because the SP&S operated long hood forward I think? but in this picture Ex OE #53 is connected to another locomotive but shows no sign of MU hoses.
Only RSs that I remember that had MU hoses where the RS-2s with steam generators #60-62 for passenger service.
Looking in the Four Ways West Color Pictorial, (pages 82, 83), there does not appear to be any MU receptacle in those views. There is a photo of 50 and 52, looking as though they could be coupled, top of page 83. But that might be an illusion simply due to the angle, and again no MU that I can see. The latest SP&S date given seems to be June of 1968. Then another in July of 1970, post-SP&S.
ok, I guess it's confirmed then SP&S RS1's were not MU capable. Thank you guys for your posts and info!
When the RS1's came out, there was still an issue of 1 loco/1 crew. There was no way to MU steam locos, and the early diesels followed suit. So if every loco had a crew, so there wasn't much point of MUing. This was a big issue with the original FT's, because EMD sold them as ABBA sets, which THEY called a loco and they were MU'd together, but the unions said it was 4 engines (or at least 2) and required that many crews to operate. Of course the railroad management always are looking to cut corners/spending, and they won out in the end. It was along the same lines of railroads using 44 (and less) ton switchers because the rule was that those could be operated by a single crewman, vs a 2 or 3 man crew.
Not sure if you are old enough to remember, but even as I was starting junior high school, early 1960's, there were still big battles ongoing about this situation. What the railroads termed as "featherbedding".
really? could one do that? it seems like it'd be next to impossible because you'd have to do a lot of running between the cab, switch, and something like that.
I assume there still would have been someone in the caboose (conductor, switchman) but the engine crew was one.
None of the SP&S RS-1's were MU equipped. BN retired all of them shortly after the merger. None were ever painted in BN Green. Mostly they were used as transfer and switching locomotives. All the RS-2's and RS-3's were MU equipped as were most of the road power.
