Model Train Forum banner
1 - 20 of 25 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
11,655 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 · (Edited)
I have been searching for info on these locomotives, in answer to one question…..why was the angle of the rounded noses of these locomotives changed, from the steep angled slant nose of the E6 (and earlier E units) to the less slanted E7 (and E8’s and 9’s)…..

There must have been a reason to change it….unless it was merely a design change for the sake of it…..

Was there a “reason”? I kind of like the more slanted noses….

E6 and earlier
Train Sky Vehicle Rolling stock Mode of transport


E7 and later
Train Sky Vehicle Rolling stock Railway
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,173 Posts
From Electro-Motive E-Units and F-Units, by Brian Solomon (if I interpreted and summarized correctly): As WWII was nearing its end, Electro-Motive was allowed by the WPB to change designs and introduce standard models. Standardization cut across model lines. The E7, introduced in 1945, adopted the bulldog nose of the FT.

BTW, I also like the slant nose better than the bulldog.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
11,655 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
From Electro-Motive E-Units and F-Units, by Brian Solomom (if I interpreted and summarized correctly): As WWII was nearing its end, Electro-Motive was allowed by the WPB to change designs and introduce standard models. Standardization cut across model lines. The E7, introduced in 1945, adopted the bulldog nose of the FT.

BTW, I also like the slant nose better than the bulldog.
You might have something there……the nose of the E7 went on to be the shape for all the following F units as well….
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
11,655 Posts
Discussion Starter · #12 ·
I’m thinking ease of assembly. I think I read no 2 noses were alike (as they were hand fabricated…..)
So that means, new E/F units made by the model train manufactures have been modelled after a unique unit nose, as the premier manufactures now use LIdar 3D scanning to build their molds from….

If they only scanned one locomotive, which today would mean a preserved locomotive, the noses on all the models produced from those molds will be of that particular locomotive, and therefore not really ”unit specific”, as some manufacturers claim….

I know, no one will be able to see the difference, but at least we know…..
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,129 Posts
Lehigh wrote above:
"As WWII was nearing its end, Electro-Motive was allowed by the WPB to change designs and introduce standard models. Standardization cut across model lines. The E7, introduced in 1945, adopted the bulldog nose of the FT."

One style instead of two.

More cost-effective from the builder's standpoint (no need to maintain two separate parts inventories, etc.).

Makes sense, especially after WW2 when EMD was really trying to get as many new diesels out-of-the-doors as possible.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
11,655 Posts
Discussion Starter · #14 ·
Lehigh wrote above:
"As WWII was nearing its end, Electro-Motive was allowed by the WPB to change designs and introduce standard models. Standardization cut across model lines. The E7, introduced in 1945, adopted the bulldog nose of the FT."

One style instead of two.

More cost-effective from the builder's standpoint (no need to maintain two separate parts inventories, etc.).
But, I guess my question really was, why didn’t they standardize on the more slanted nose, instead of re-designing to the bull nose that it became? You’d think there would have been some sort of a reason…..
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
11,655 Posts
Discussion Starter · #15 ·
It seems to me that it was simply more cost effective to have the standard nose rather than hand crafting. Bottom line rules all business decisions.
But I have heard that even the newer bullnoses of the later E units and all the F units to follow also had to be somewhat handcrafted….I have heard that it was the hardest shape to achieve properly, on the real ones as well as the models….
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
968 Posts
I’ve always wondered this myself. I can understand that mass production of an easier nose would be the way to go but hard to say why one over the other. I will definitely say the craftsmanship of the old days is long gone. Computers took a ton of jobs and skill away from the work force
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
207 Posts
Standardization & cost saving aside, which is most likely the reason IMO, the bulldog nose appears safer during collision. Of the the two I mean. Neither is as safe as the cab of a PRR H-24-66, but not to stray…. Hit a cow, or a deer, or a 49 Mercury with that bulldog nose and, that object will lift a little but the nose is slanted so bluntly the object will roll to the side more than it will go up and over. Now think of an E1 or E3 hitting a cow, or 49 Mercury. It’s more likely, as per physics, to lift and hit the cab windshield if traveling at a decent mainline speed.
Not saying that was the reason, or even a contributing factor, or it ever happened. But I’d rather hit a city bus in an E8 than in an E3.
That said, the earlier plow-like slant was much more stylistic & appealing to my eyes as well. Wouldn’t wanna drive one, but they’re pretty to look at.

Interesting thing though, Alco did the same thing did they not? The DL-109 had quite a slope. They did away with that by the time the FA/PA series was on the drawing boards. The reason Alco changed might be the same reason EMD did… er, to say, might be able to confirm why Alco did. But I buy the cost saving, 1 standard design. Look at what came next. The Geeps, the RS-1+. All pretty much shared common bodies.
 
1 - 20 of 25 Posts
Top