If you ever have an engine failure, the second engine usually has enough power to get you to the scene of the accident.
This optimistic outlook came from a hospital department head, a General Aviation flyer, who had lined our small party up with a local twin-engined charter to Rocky Mount, North Carolina in the mid-1990s. We were going on yet another computer system site visit. To transport a handful of people, this alternative was cheaper than taking a commercial flight. As well, it was direct, saving us travel time as well.
I sat with my back to the young pilot (flying the outbound trip - the younger 'first officer' flew the return) and looked over my shoulder from time to time as I jotted down data from their instruments. The cumulus and cumulonimbus clouds were nice but it was too noisy for conversation and too bumpy for reading as we made our way over New York state - so I kept notes.
As we got ready to land for refueling and customs at Baltimore, the pilot was doing some really 'fun' flying - from my perspective: we went into a sudden 45 degree bank with scenery passing across and below the nose at quite a rapid rate. It turns out we had been lining up for Runway 33 Left (1.75 miles in length), instead of Runway 33 Right (5000 feet long). The runway thresholds are staggered, about a mile apart and it was hot and hazy ... you know, a mistake any of us could make. Someone (probably a calm voice from the 'tower') was calling our pilot's attention to this little oversight. And, come to think of it, we never did find out if we had been flying 'in formation' with bigger aircraft before our sudden turn.
On the way back, the IT professional I had been sitting knee-to-knee with during the trip, was watching the fuel tanks and asked me to bring something to the attention of the pilot. Not wanting to bug the pilot (any more than I had been with my note-taking), I kind of rebuffed him. Soon, the IT guy was getting into this 'Shatner/Lithgow Twilight Zone' panic about our aircraft. So I gently touched the now-non-flying pilot's shoulder and said my friend was concerned about the fuel gauges. The pilot looked at the gauges, laughed - kind of nervously, I thought - quickly threw some switches, and checked the gauges again. My seat mate had been concerned about a tank running dry and a vapour lock forming in the fuel system which would block the flow of fuel to the engine(s). And, come to think of it, we never did find out if the second engine would have taken us to the scene of the accident.
I sat with my back to the young pilot (flying the outbound trip - the younger 'first officer' flew the return) and looked over my shoulder from time to time as I jotted down data from their instruments. The cumulus and cumulonimbus clouds were nice but it was too noisy for conversation and too bumpy for reading as we made our way over New York state - so I kept notes.
As we got ready to land for refueling and customs at Baltimore, the pilot was doing some really 'fun' flying - from my perspective: we went into a sudden 45 degree bank with scenery passing across and below the nose at quite a rapid rate. It turns out we had been lining up for Runway 33 Left (1.75 miles in length), instead of Runway 33 Right (5000 feet long). The runway thresholds are staggered, about a mile apart and it was hot and hazy ... you know, a mistake any of us could make. Someone (probably a calm voice from the 'tower') was calling our pilot's attention to this little oversight. And, come to think of it, we never did find out if we had been flying 'in formation' with bigger aircraft before our sudden turn.
On the way back, the IT professional I had been sitting knee-to-knee with during the trip, was watching the fuel tanks and asked me to bring something to the attention of the pilot. Not wanting to bug the pilot (any more than I had been with my note-taking), I kind of rebuffed him. Soon, the IT guy was getting into this 'Shatner/Lithgow Twilight Zone' panic about our aircraft. So I gently touched the now-non-flying pilot's shoulder and said my friend was concerned about the fuel gauges. The pilot looked at the gauges, laughed - kind of nervously, I thought - quickly threw some switches, and checked the gauges again. My seat mate had been concerned about a tank running dry and a vapour lock forming in the fuel system which would block the flow of fuel to the engine(s). And, come to think of it, we never did find out if the second engine would have taken us to the scene of the accident.
Fortunately, many aspects of railroading aren't as unforgiving as flying. In fact, I remember reading an engineer's reflection on his experiences with the two-engined E8 - you could always manage to get somewhere in the event of problems.
The E8 seems quite foreign to most people's awareness of Canadian passenger diesels of the 1950s and 1960s. Why would anyone need a two-engined passenger diesel? After all, back then they assembled shorter or longer trains of headend cars and coaches in line with demand, or anticipated demand, e.g. for holiday travel. It made sense to have smaller building blocks of diesel units to economically match the length of the train.
This comes from a corner of a GM advertisement in the 1950-1952 Locomotive Cyclopedia ...
The E8 seems quite foreign to most people's awareness of Canadian passenger diesels of the 1950s and 1960s. Why would anyone need a two-engined passenger diesel? After all, back then they assembled shorter or longer trains of headend cars and coaches in line with demand, or anticipated demand, e.g. for holiday travel. It made sense to have smaller building blocks of diesel units to economically match the length of the train.
This comes from a corner of a GM advertisement in the 1950-1952 Locomotive Cyclopedia ...
 |
| Locomotive Cyclopedia; 1950; Simmons-Boardman. |
In fact, this was CPR's first specialized 'passenger diesel' and it was the subject of a lot of corporate hullabaloo.
Note: Engineer Hendrick Gagnon, above, is no relation.
Well, actually, he is - if we go back to the early 1600s.
Thanks for wondering about that ...
* * *
Here are the sales figures and data for the CPR's American-built
E8 locomotives and their stable mates.
 |
| The Second Diesel Spotter's Guide; 1973; Jerry A Pinkepank; Kalmbach. |
Now, some diagrams which show the equipment of the E8 locomotive.
 |
| Locomotive Cyclopedia; 1950; Simmons-Boardman. |
In Canadian Pacific Diesel Locomotives (Dean and Hanna; 1981; Railfare) it is explained that CPR's three units were initially based in Montreal, as part of their region-by-region dieselization efforts. The original plan was to assign them from Montreal in coordination with Boston and Maine diesels as follows:
- Newport Local (Trains 213, 214).
- The Redwing (Trains 209, 210 - Montreal-Boston) but only as far as Woodsville, Vermont, making one round trip per day.
- The Alouette (Trains 211, 212 - Montreal-Boston) on alternate days ... Boston & Maine through a locomotive equalizing agreement supplied their unit on alternate days.
Originally, CPR ordered E7 units to match those assigned above by B&M. However, by February 1949 EMD had introduced an improved version, the E8, and CPR changed their order accordingly.
Running without the usual large steam locomotive boiler to provide passenger car heat, the knowledge that there were two steam generators on the unit must have been quite reassuring.
This was the view from the American side:
Running without the usual large steam locomotive boiler to provide passenger car heat, the knowledge that there were two steam generators on the unit must have been quite reassuring.
This was the view from the American side:
 |
| Boston & Maine Railroad, public timetable; September 26 1954. |
I don't know if the E8s were being used exclusively on their B&M connection when the timetable above was published. Over their lives, the units were used on a wide variety of assignments across Canada. Two were sold to VIA Rail in 1978. Later, they were used in western Canada on The Canadian (the 1801 was wrecked in 1968).
At Montreal West, apparently with a train for CPR's north shore line to Quebec City, here is the 1800 in August 1961. This little urchin has come off the MTC Number 90 bus from Lachine with his father.
* * *
Now, if you'd like to see an excellent article which goes into
a lot of well-researched information, along with photos of these
E8 locomotives in Canadian service,
visit my brother Eric's Trackside Treasure at this link:
visit my brother Eric's Trackside Treasure at this link: