GP9r vs. GP9

Discussion relating to the pre-1983 B&M and MEC railroads. For current operations, please see the Pan Am Railways Forum.

Moderator: MEC407

GP9r vs. GP9

Postby KSmitty » Mon Oct 12, 2009 12:08 pm

I believe that all the GP9's left on the roster are ex BM, and when Guilford was formed, BM was in the middle of upgrading its GP9's. Guilford quickly canceled the upgrade program and as a result has a mix of 9's and 9r's on the roster. Besides being a little more "up to date" and producing 1800hp. instead of the original 1750hp, what is the difference between an original and a 9r. Especially exterior features. Is there a way to tell without looking at a roster?

Also, When B&M rebuilt their 9's they left the high hood, while many other railroads (CN/Santa Fe/CP) rebuit their elderly geeps the first thing to go was the high nose. Any idea why BM was different?
KSmitty
 
Posts: 1990
Joined: Mon Jan 19, 2009 1:29 pm
Location: Maine

Re: GP9r vs. GP9

Postby MEC407 » Mon Oct 12, 2009 3:33 pm

The vast majority of the upgrades were internal. Mostly electrical stuff, and some minor changes to the engine, if I recall correctly. I'm honestly not sure what the external spotting features are, or if there are any.

As to why they didn't do a nose job, I'm guessing it's simply because B&M was B&M and they tended to not do anything unless it was absolutely necessary. And they weren't exactly swimming in cash at that point in time.
MEC407
Moderator:
Pan Am Railways — Boston & Maine/Maine Central — Delaware & Hudson
Central Maine & Quebec/Montreal, Maine & Atlantic/Bangor & Aroostook
Providence & Worcester — New England — GE Locomotives
User avatar
MEC407
 
Posts: 10814
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 8:15 pm

Re: GP9r vs. GP9

Postby KSmitty » Mon Oct 12, 2009 3:41 pm

OK, thanks for the answer, I forgot that at that time B&M was either in bankruptcy, or just out and still under some type of court oversight. So that would probably explain the hoods.
KSmitty
 
Posts: 1990
Joined: Mon Jan 19, 2009 1:29 pm
Location: Maine

Re: GP9r vs. GP9

Postby bmcdr » Mon Oct 12, 2009 5:36 pm

Hey Smitty,
The GP-9 rebuild program was just what you thought it was, a cheap, quick upgrade from 1700 horespower to 1800. There are no spotting features other than a renumbering to the 1800 series. Each GP-9 and one GP-18 was merely renumbered adding an "8" in place of the "7".

Rebuilt were:-
(1703 > 1803 > ST45) (1704 > 1804 > ST46) (1706 > 1806 > ST47) (1708 > 1808 > ST48) (1717 > 1817 > ST49) (1721 > 1821 > ST50) (1725 > 1825 > ST51) (1726 > 1826 > ST52)
(1738 > 1838 > ST77) (1748 > 1848 > SCRAP) (1750 > 1850 > SCRAP)
David Hutchinson
User avatar
bmcdr
 
Posts: 670
Joined: Mon Dec 25, 2006 11:12 pm
Location: East Hampstead,N.H.

Re: GP9r vs. GP9

Postby KSmitty » Mon Oct 12, 2009 6:59 pm

bmcdr wrote:There are no spotting features other than a renumbering to the 1800 series


Thanks David! I am just doing a little research, trying to understand the PAR roster and wondering what the differences between an R and a regular 9 were, and that sums it up real well.
KSmitty
 
Posts: 1990
Joined: Mon Jan 19, 2009 1:29 pm
Location: Maine

Re: GP9r vs. GP9

Postby MEC407 » Mon Oct 12, 2009 7:40 pm

Dave and other B&M employees past and present, correct me if I'm wrong: the primary purpose of the rebuild was to increase reliability and prolong the service lives of these units, and the small horsepower increase was incidental... am I right?
MEC407
Moderator:
Pan Am Railways — Boston & Maine/Maine Central — Delaware & Hudson
Central Maine & Quebec/Montreal, Maine & Atlantic/Bangor & Aroostook
Providence & Worcester — New England — GE Locomotives
User avatar
MEC407
 
Posts: 10814
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 8:15 pm

Re: GP9r vs. GP9

Postby bmcdr » Mon Oct 12, 2009 8:25 pm

That is it in a nutshell!
David Hutchinson
User avatar
bmcdr
 
Posts: 670
Joined: Mon Dec 25, 2006 11:12 pm
Location: East Hampstead,N.H.

Re: GP9r vs. GP9

Postby MEC407 » Mon Oct 12, 2009 8:27 pm

Thanks! :-)
MEC407
Moderator:
Pan Am Railways — Boston & Maine/Maine Central — Delaware & Hudson
Central Maine & Quebec/Montreal, Maine & Atlantic/Bangor & Aroostook
Providence & Worcester — New England — GE Locomotives
User avatar
MEC407
 
Posts: 10814
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 8:15 pm

Re: GP9r vs. GP9

Postby pennsy » Tue Oct 13, 2009 9:27 am

You might also want to look into the GP-9's of the Union Pacific. They were rebuilt to 2000 hp.
pennsy
 
Posts: 1697
Joined: Sat Mar 11, 2006 4:07 pm
Location: Southern California

Re: GP9r vs. GP9

Postby v8interceptor » Wed Oct 14, 2009 11:28 am

pennsy wrote:You might also want to look into the GP-9's of the Union Pacific. They were rebuilt to 2000 hp.

That was a very different program which involved rebuilding almost new locomotives with turbochargers....the locomotives dubbed "Omaha GP20s" spurred EMD to design and market the production GP20....
v8interceptor
 
Posts: 316
Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2008 5:13 pm
Location: Rhode Island

Re: GP9r vs. GP9

Postby bmmrlbnsfengr » Wed Oct 14, 2009 3:11 pm

Hey Dave ,
The 1725/1726 were rebuilt after the wreck at Chicopee Ma correct?? I thought that those units were lost in that wreck. Please advise!

Thanks
L M Scannell
bmmrlbnsfengr
 
Posts: 69
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2007 8:56 pm
Location: livingston mt

Re: GP9r vs. GP9

Postby pennsy » Wed Oct 14, 2009 3:18 pm

Yup, that got EMD really interested in working with turbochargers, finally, and the results are history.
pennsy
 
Posts: 1697
Joined: Sat Mar 11, 2006 4:07 pm
Location: Southern California

Re: GP9r vs. GP9

Postby bmcdr » Wed Oct 14, 2009 6:22 pm

Looking at photos taken after the Chicopee wreck, you would think the 1725 and 1726 would be candidates for the scrap line, but they did indeed survive and became the first two units to be rebuilt and renumbered. 1825(1725) came out of the shop in late August 1980 and 1826(1726) in late May of 1981. The 1726 was more severely damaged, that's probably why the 1725 was done first.
David Hutchinson
User avatar
bmcdr
 
Posts: 670
Joined: Mon Dec 25, 2006 11:12 pm
Location: East Hampstead,N.H.

Re: GP9r vs. GP9

Postby bmcdr » Wed Oct 14, 2009 7:02 pm

Here are two shots of the 1825 and 1826 taken at Salem,Mass. on Sept.1,1980 and May 27,1981.
10-14 a.jpg
10-14 a.jpg (66.15 KiB) Viewed 3169 times
10-14 b.jpg
10-14 b.jpg (66.03 KiB) Viewed 3168 times
David Hutchinson
User avatar
bmcdr
 
Posts: 670
Joined: Mon Dec 25, 2006 11:12 pm
Location: East Hampstead,N.H.

Re: GP9r vs. GP9

Postby bmmrlbnsfengr » Wed Oct 14, 2009 7:27 pm

bmcdr wrote:Looking at photos taken after the Chicopee wreck, you would think the 1725 and 1726 would be candidates for the scrap line, but they did indeed survive and became the first two units to be rebuilt and renumbered. 1825(1725) came out of the shop in late August 1980 and 1826(1726) in late May of 1981. The 1726 was more severely damaged, that's probably why the 1725 was done first.



Thanks Dave for the clarification , indeed a job well done by the B&M mechanical forces!!

Thanks again!!
L M Scannell
bmmrlbnsfengr
 
Posts: 69
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2007 8:56 pm
Location: livingston mt

Next

Return to Boston & Maine/Maine Central

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests