Re: PC: PC Alco question

["Robert Holzweiss" <robert.holzweiss@xxxxxxxx>]

ERIE-LACKAWANNA -AT- prodigy.net wrote:

What were the numbers to be for the Nine PC SD45's and what numbers did they become under SP? Are they still running today on UP? 

Don't know what #'s PC would have assigned.  6240-6248 perhaps?  After the five SD45's PC added to the roster.

Canceled PC order to SP (SSW) as follows
SSW 9060   Retired and sold 11/87 to LMC, Richmond, CA, scrapped
SSW 9061   Retired and sold 3/88 to Southwest Car Parts, Venus, TX,
       scrapped
SSW 9062   Retired 9/85 and rebuilt to SD45R and re# 7553, wrecked at
       Haymond, TX 7/94, scrapped.
SSW 9063   Retired 4/73, wrecked 4/2/73 at El Monte, CA, scrapped 
       5/3/73 by Chrome Crankshaft.
SSW 9064   Retired 9/85 and rebuilt to SD45R and re# 7554, survived to 
       UP merger 1996, retired and sold by 1997.
SSW 9065   Retired and sold 8/88 to LMC, Richmond, CA, scrapped
SSW 9066   Retired and sold 11/87 to LMC, Richmond, CA, scrapped  SSW 9067   Retired and sold 8/88 to LMC, Richmond, CA, scrapped  SSW 9068   Retired 1990, sold to Helm

Also what were (proposed) RI numbers for the 15 U33B's?

PC 2956, [CRI&P 4510]
PC 2957, [CRI&P 4511]
PC 2958, [CRI&P 4512]
PC 2959, [CRI&P 4513]
PC 2960, [CRI&P 4514]
PC 2961, [CRI&P 4515]
PC 2962, [CRI&P 4516]
PC 2963, [CRI&P 4517]
PC 2964, [CRI&P 4518]
PC 2965, [CRI&P 4519]
PC 2966, [CRI&P 4520]
PC 2967, [CRI&P 4521]
PC 2968, [CRI&P 4522]
PC 2969, [CRI&P 4523]
PC 2970, [CRI&P 4524]

Ironically, RI had to cancel the order because it could not come up with financing.

Incidently, there is a reason PC stopped purchasing locomotives in 1973.  On January 2, 1974, Nixon signed the 3R Act initiating the public sector solution to the PC (and other northeastern railroads) bankruptcy.  PC creditors absolutely demanded that trustees stop dissipating PC assets through loco purchases since a public sector solution (however undefined) seemed in the cards.

As many listers probably know, there is a very specific reason PC trustees purchased GP-38's and GP-38-2's in such great quantities.  As Yanosey says, "easy on the gas and maintenance with no frills."  They could also be used in almost every conceivable service.  Higher horsepower models were inflexible for yard and branch line service with light (or poorly maintained) track, and yard models had a difficult time on the road in the PC's mountainous areas.  The 38 and 38-2 were the best of both worlds for a railroad that had no money and worn out equipment.  Their longevity (and that of the SD40's and GP40's for that matter) is a testament to the fine engineering of the EMD folks.

Bob Holzweiss