# EMD E Unit Noses



## Old_Hobo (Feb 20, 2014)

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









E7 and later


----------



## DonW (Mar 25, 2012)

I read somewhere that the railroads found aerodynamics to not save enough fuel to be worth the other shortcomings that it brought about such as servicing.


----------



## Old_Hobo (Feb 20, 2014)

It would be nice to see details about that…..how could the angle of the nose affect servicing?


----------



## JeffHurl (Apr 22, 2021)

I would have guessed ease of manufacture. Probably easier to produce the simpler angles on the later designs.


----------



## Andreash (Dec 30, 2018)

I’m thinking ease of assembly. I think I read no 2 noses were alike (as they were hand fabricated, but I can’t recall where I read that)


----------



## Lehigh74 (Sep 25, 2015)

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.


----------



## Old_Hobo (Feb 20, 2014)

Lehigh74 said:


> 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….


----------



## Lehigh74 (Sep 25, 2015)

Andreash said:


> I think I read no 2 noses were alike (as they were hand fabricated, but I can’t recall where I read that)


Yes. I've read that too, probably in the Solomon book (among other sources) that the curve on the nose was mostly body putty and final shaping was done by hand.


----------



## Gramps (Feb 28, 2016)

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.


----------



## Quietman (Oct 2, 2016)

Although- the second picture is an E8, E7's had square windows. Only know that because of being a GN fan and the Empire Builder e units were E7's.
E8's went to round windows


----------



## Old_Hobo (Feb 20, 2014)

That is true…..I didn’t mention that because I was only interested in the change of the nose….


----------



## Old_Hobo (Feb 20, 2014)

Andreash said:


> 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…..


----------



## J.Albert1949 (Feb 3, 2018)

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.


----------



## Old_Hobo (Feb 20, 2014)

J.Albert1949 said:


> 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.
> ...


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…..


----------



## Old_Hobo (Feb 20, 2014)

Gramps said:


> 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….


----------



## Jscullans (Jul 8, 2019)

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


----------



## OilValleyRy (Oct 3, 2021)

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.


----------



## Gramps (Feb 28, 2016)

Maybe I'm in a minority but I liked the bulldog nose better than the earlier nose style.


----------



## Stumpy (Mar 19, 2013)

I think it was all about that "streamliner" image.



https://streamlinermemories.info/FL/OBSPC.pdf


----------



## Old_Hobo (Feb 20, 2014)

Well, that’s as good a reason as I’ve heard on this! 👍


----------



## Stumpy (Mar 19, 2013)

And in the UK...

Ohhh that looks so sleek and fast! Honey, let's go to Pitlochry for supper.


----------



## Railtunes (Jun 19, 2012)

Old_Hobo said:


> 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…..
> 
> ...


----------



## Railtunes (Jun 19, 2012)

Stumpy said:


> And in the UK...
> 
> Ohhh that looks so sleek and fast! Honey, let's go to Pitlochry for supper.


Love those LMS Coronation class Pacifics!
However, back to the E unit noses: One very practical reason for reducing the slope is that it permitted putting a nose door on the units. This would allow passage of crew into a passenger train, thus allowing a change of crews on the go. There was a passage on both ends of B units, but, if an A unit with the nose facing the rear of the train was added to the power consist, there would be no way to get from the loco to the first passenger car.
As another poster mentioned, a more vertical slope would could possibly permit better servicing access. Having a door in the nose would certainly make access to the nose area for servicing whatever was in the nose even easier!


----------



## Old_Hobo (Feb 20, 2014)

By jove, I think you nailed the reason! The lesser slope allowed for a door in the nose!

Why didn’t I think of that…..?


----------



## scenicsRme (Aug 19, 2020)

One thing I immediately noticed at the NCTM at Spencer is the EMD ACL #500 restored there is the headlight is a trumpet shape, not the cylinder shape of most models. As a metalsmith, I can attest that a compound curve is the most difficulty to create by hand both to get smooth and symmetrical as well as make as mirror image shapes. The earlier slant noses were one giant compound curve likely hammered out in halves and joined. Finding highly skilled "tin benders" would have been much more difficult after the 40's when almost all auto body panels were stamped in machines rather than hand formed. The bulldog nose only has the much more simplified compound curve top piece that could be easily stamped out or even hand hammered into or over a form by a less skilled metal worker. The lower section of the bulldog was just rolled flat sheet metal.


----------

