 |
Re: SD39 - Low gearing?
Author: WAF
Date: 01-28-2010 - 12:04
SP5103 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Lower gearing? Can anyone actually confirm that
> SD39s had 65:12 or 64:13 gearing? There would not
> be any advantage to them having low gearing in the
> service they were in.
>
> I believe that they were initially ordered with
> the intention as using them primarily as Tehachapi
> helpers. IIRC - The first order was supposed to
> have dual control stands in addition to the full
> light packages and plows on both endss - making
> them very suitable to run as single rear helpers.
> (Weren't some RSD-5s similiarly equipped for the
> same reason?) One of the SD39's other assignments
> was working the Jawbone on the Lone Pine Local
> (but not exclusively). As they got tired, they
> ended their days on LA Bain transfer drags. Did
> they spend some time on a hump job in Texas? Too
> bad they didn't make it through the GRIP program.
A bunch of them were in the SLO helper pool between 1981-84
-------------------------------------------------------
> Lower gearing? Can anyone actually confirm that
> SD39s had 65:12 or 64:13 gearing? There would not
> be any advantage to them having low gearing in the
> service they were in.
>
> I believe that they were initially ordered with
> the intention as using them primarily as Tehachapi
> helpers. IIRC - The first order was supposed to
> have dual control stands in addition to the full
> light packages and plows on both endss - making
> them very suitable to run as single rear helpers.
> (Weren't some RSD-5s similiarly equipped for the
> same reason?) One of the SD39's other assignments
> was working the Jawbone on the Lone Pine Local
> (but not exclusively). As they got tired, they
> ended their days on LA Bain transfer drags. Did
> they spend some time on a hump job in Texas? Too
> bad they didn't make it through the GRIP program.
A bunch of them were in the SLO helper pool between 1981-84
