Speaking of Early Conrail

[Green_Elite_Cab]

I have got two more possible candidates (they served at the freelance line too).


They belonged to the EL 1405 - 1409 GP7 series and became CR 5925 - 5929.
I did find lots of former EL GP7 still in EL paint scheme and CR patches but none of this very specific series with steam heater and used for passenger service.
The 1407/5927 became rebuild into GP8 with chopped nose and plain CR blue in 1980. A photo of 1406/5906 made in 1980 shows the engine in plain blue too. I could not find photos of the other engines of that series in CR service and none at all with patches.

I would like to know if two of them made it into 198x still in EL paint scheme with CR patches?

My guess is you won't have much luck with these units.

1407/5927 was actually outshopped from Paducah Shops December 13, 1976, and was part of the very first pilot group rebuilt into GP8s. It would become briefly #5726 before being finally renumbered #5406

However, none of the other former DL&W Passenger GP7s appear to be on the GP8 roster.

While I would hold out to see what photos might be lurking on the net, I might consider removing the "torpedo tubes" and doing a different Former EL unit. There were plenty of strange spark arrestors and other roof top details on other EL GP7s to replace them.

Consider this-

There were 354 GP7s at the start of conrail. Many were retired right off the bat in 1976, and their number steadily eroded. Between 1976 and 1979, 48 were converted to GP8s. Another many GP7s (along with GP9s and F7s) were traded in for 100 GP15-1s. In 1981, a significant number of GP7s were retired (according to the Conrail Motive Power Review Volume 1). Another significant block were gone by 1984, and 33 were retired in 1985. By 1986, no GP7s remained on conrail. Its entirely possible some GP7s never even saw much service with conrail.

To support JWB's can of worms assertion:

The GP7s were the second most numerous locomotive on Conrail, followed by GP9 (463) at the start of conrail. Despite their numbers, they suffered from being non-standardized. a "Geep" may be set up to run long hood forward, or short hood forward. At least three different brake systems were used, and then further modified by the component railroads. They had all different sorts of fuel tanks, may or may not have had dynamic brakes, and even different engine components such as air compressors. In fact, the wiring in many locomotives even within the same component railroad tended to be different (one DL&W GP7 might not be interchangeable with your torpedo tube ones). Without Cab Signalling, many of these GP7s and GP9s were not even permitted to pull trains on large portions of conrail, without a cab-signaled unit in the lead, severely limiting their utility.

While i'm sure many of Conrail's roster escaped the photographer's lense (or at least, are not easily accessible on the internet), I suspect the only reason we saw 5927 rebuilt and 5926 in blue was because they were in good working order at a time when 10% of Conrails fleet was broken down and unserviceable. Conrail was borrowing road locomotives from all over. It wouldn't be unusual to see a Canadian locomotive leading a Conrail freight during the first few years.

The DL&W passenger GP7s had all been mostly bumped from Passenger service by the U34CH locomotives. Most GP7s you see pulling passenger train in Jersey at that time were CNJ units. Penn Central had some ex NYC had some torpedo tube GP9s around chicago which became painted blue for a time, but probably were also retired after the Staggers act cancelled the commuter train that unit was required to pull (this also killed the remaining E8s on conrail).


If you like them, JWB certainly has a point, no photos means no evidence, and its your railroad. I haven't found any photos of an EL one yet (nor the SW1500 from earlier), but that doesn't mean they didn't make it even as far as 1985, despite the long odds.

If you'd rather model a "known" locomotive, you might want to consider a little more alteration to a different unit. In this case, it may be better to work backward from a photo.