leading truck and stan-


dard air and fuel tanks (addi- tional, optional tanks could be specified to fill this space). With production in the United States and Canada, EMD built a total of 381 FP7s (1,500-hp) through De- cember 1953, when the 1,750-hp FP9 succeeded. As rail passenger markets were already declining, only 90 FP9s came to be. The sum total seems small in the grand scheme of EMD’s output until one puts their status as a “catalog hybrid” into context. In that sense, 470 additional orders for a proven platform modified at nominal cost is nothing to sneeze at. While ostensibly created for rolling terrain, the FP’s dual-purpose nature and flexibility arguably garnered more fa- vor among economically minded roads. Among them, Louisville & Nashville (L&N) rostered the largest FP7 fleet with 45 be- ginning in 1951, plus 11 more acquired through its purchase of part of Chicago & Eastern Illinois Railway’s (C&EI) system. While L&N did contend with rugged Ap- palachian territory, its overall profile was perhaps not as “mountainous” as that of the western roads who spurred the FP7 development; and, curiously, those roads didn’t roster the FP7 in large numbers — it seems a few to serve the routes in ques- tion were sufficient. As for L&N, it proved a versatile class, and though many were run roughshod and traded in after little more than a decade, many others were regeared, rebuilt, and reassigned to dedi- cated freight service as passenger sup- port dwindled.


Representing one such workhorse


is Railroad Model Craftsman’s sample of L&N FP7 619, as rendered by Inter-


Mountain in HO scale. When delivered new to L&N in March 1951, the unit ini- tially displayed the road’s attractive navy-and-cream passenger livery. That scheme was soon dropped in favor of an evolving series of various cost-cutting “dip jobs” of blue or black; L&N-as-de- livered units escaped those treatments, which were primarily applied to the rail- road’s adopted ex-C&EI siblings. With the delivery of new GP30s in 1962, L&N unveiled a new gray-and-yellow livery as its official corporate look, and eventually repainted the FP7s as they were shopped for major service during following years. Even then, their appearance was still far from uniform!


While L&N’s gray scheme is relatively plain, it initially employed a somewhat ornate nose treatment. Draping down over the nose headlight, yellow met gray along a notched or “sawtooth” angular boundary profile, which was delineated in black on early units. This pattern was actually a simplified version of the classic EMD striping on the original blue-and- cream scheme — the stripes were simply shortened and constrained to the nose. Over time, even this embellishment was pared back to straight edges, sometimes held below the headlight. Paint scheme inconsistency on the L&N was not reserved for cab units; road switchers ultimately received little effort beyond painting the nose solid yellow


while leaving the cab and remainder gray; even the heraldic initials and road num- ber were often devoid of outline. While the latter trait’s lack of contrast is hard to justify, one can understand why the nose flanks were simplified as the sawtooth pattern is the troublesome sort to mask and paint (never mind compound curves in miniature). Generally, considering the straight and evenly angled sawtooth notches (with correct rounded-taper top and sharp-point bottom for each), sym- metrically balanced sweep atop the nose over the headlight, and crisp, fine black hairline, InterMountain’s paintwork is admirable. However, number boards of black numerals on white inserts are more appropriate for the as-delivered scheme, and the sawtooth pattern extends a tad too far along the flank behind the nose: the top “notch” should almost touch the number board. This longer nose mask naturally changes the sweep from the headlight down to the sides. By itself, given the various other revisions incon- sistently applied by the L&N, this subtle variation seems quite plausible although I could not find a photo of a unit so-paint- ed. Fortunately, the large 36-inch herald


FEBRUARY 2016 87


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88  |  Page 89  |  Page 90  |  Page 91  |  Page 92  |  Page 93  |  Page 94  |  Page 95  |  Page 96  |  Page 97  |  Page 98  |  Page 99  |  Page 100