daveklepper wrote: The FTwas certainly not an unproven locomotive: (1) Its many-railroad demonstration tour proved it and also allowed final tune-up to get rid of any remaining bugs. (2) All the specific technology had already been proven in E-unit high-speed passenger service, some quite demanding, and in many switchers. In WW2 it proved to be a reliable workhorse. That does not diminish my admiration for the DL-109 or the PA that followed it. The New Haven used both as dual service locomotives. Many consists required two FL-9's or GP-7's that had been handled well by one PA or DL-109. A matter of available horsepower and the superiority at that time of GE's traction motors that could handle current overload better.
The FTwas certainly not an unproven locomotive: (1) Its many-railroad demonstration tour proved it and also allowed final tune-up to get rid of any remaining bugs. (2) All the specific technology had already been proven in E-unit high-speed passenger service, some quite demanding, and in many switchers. In WW2 it proved to be a reliable workhorse. That does not diminish my admiration for the DL-109 or the PA that followed it. The New Haven used both as dual service locomotives. Many consists required two FL-9's or GP-7's that had been handled well by one PA or DL-109. A matter of available horsepower and the superiority at that time of GE's traction motors that could handle current overload better.
Using A J Kristopans GM Serial Number page at http://community-2.webtv.net/ajkristopans/ANDRESGMLOCOMOTIVE/ I find a two month production gap in March and April of 1943. In every other month of World War Two FTs were produced. At times the production may have slowed down to a trickle, but the FTs were still produced. They were that critical to the war effort. EMD built approximately 1025 FTs during World War Two.
wjstix wrote: Most US locomotive builders were too busy building locomotives!! Remember how important they were to the war, in effect they were rationed...some railroads ordered diesels, but got steam instead if they couldn't "prove" to the government that they really needed diesels. For a period of about a year to a year and a half, the govt. controlled what the RR builders could make. Contrary to earlier comments, I believe during that time GM/EMD was restricted to building switchers, so there was a gap c. 1942-43 where no FT's were built. Alco built RS-1's throughout the war, many of which were used here and overseas by the military (several countries, including the USSR, built their own versions later). In fact I believe some or all of the first batch of 1941 RS-1's built for the Rock Island was requisitioned by the govt. for military use.
Most US locomotive builders were too busy building locomotives!! Remember how important they were to the war, in effect they were rationed...some railroads ordered diesels, but got steam instead if they couldn't "prove" to the government that they really needed diesels. For a period of about a year to a year and a half, the govt. controlled what the RR builders could make. Contrary to earlier comments, I believe during that time GM/EMD was restricted to building switchers, so there was a gap c. 1942-43 where no FT's were built. Alco built RS-1's throughout the war, many of which were used here and overseas by the military (several countries, including the USSR, built their own versions later). In fact I believe some or all of the first batch of 1941 RS-1's built for the Rock Island was requisitioned by the govt. for military use.
Phil there were 50 New Haven DL109s that make this an untrue statement. These DL109s were allowed by the War Production Board because they were considered dual service locomotives. They hauled both freight and passenger trains. There was a Southern DL109 and DL110 that were built in August and September 1942. There was a GM&O DL109 that was built in 1943 as well.
Alco data from The American Locomotive Company, A Centennial Remembrance by Richard Steinbrenner. See Chapters VI and VII.
Philcal wrote:... From 1942 till 1945 the War Production Board allowed EMD to build the only road diesels during the course of the war. .
wjstix wrote: Maybe it was Baldwin that built switchers then?? It seems to me only one builder was allowed to build switchers. But it's correct that for a while EMD didn't make any locomotives, if you look at FT production for example you see that gap from 1942-44. Odd thing about the War Production Board is that while they were making railroads accept steam engines instead of diesels, they required the Minneapolis and St.Louis to take FT's instead of the 2-6-6-2's they wanted !! WPB decided with the amount of steel M-St.L would need to upgrade one (or more) bridges to allow use of the mallets, it would make more sense to let them have diesels of similar power but less weight.
Maybe it was Baldwin that built switchers then?? It seems to me only one builder was allowed to build switchers. But it's correct that for a while EMD didn't make any locomotives, if you look at FT production for example you see that gap from 1942-44.
Odd thing about the War Production Board is that while they were making railroads accept steam engines instead of diesels, they required the Minneapolis and St.Louis to take FT's instead of the 2-6-6-2's they wanted !! WPB decided with the amount of steel M-St.L would need to upgrade one (or more) bridges to allow use of the mallets, it would make more sense to let them have diesels of similar power but less weight.
the Santa Fe got first crack at the FT when they proved to the WPB the need in the desert SW (early 44?)......steam enigines needed water and it had to be hauled in by the train load.....more engines more crews more lost production......the WPB also demeanded any new orders for road frieght enegines (steam) be of a existing design (PRR 2-10-4's following C&O designs)
The WPB did allow railroads with, say Alco switchers to get more Alcos, so their parts inventory could be standardized if they were willing to wait for them. But, most roads affected wanted diesel switchers ASAP and were willing to take on Alcos, if that was what was available, or Baldwins. Burlington was a case in point, getting VO1000s,rather than EMD NW2s, which they would have preferred. At the other end of the spectrum would be New York Central, which was under "pressure" to keep shippers happy and thus didn't care who built their diesel switchers.
This situation was related to allocations of materials to the builders. The WPB would allocate enough copper to Westinghouse for "civilian" production one month, then GE the next month and so on. Another metal in extremely short supply for "civilian" uses was aluminum, which hurt Alco, Baldwin,EMD and FM all of whom used it in their prime movers.
wjstix wrote: Maybe it was Baldwin that built switchers then?? It seems to me only one builder was allowed to build switchers. But it's correct that for a while EMD didn't make any locomotives, if you look at FT production for example you see that gap from 1942-44.
Both Baldwin and Alco built switchers. However, the WPB dictated which builder would fill the orders. There were several instances of a railroad ordering switchers from one builder only to have the other builder fill the order.
Once in a very limited number of occasions the US government actually stumbles and does the right thing! Needless to say this don't happen very often!
All of the first 13 domestic RS1's were requisitioned and re-trucked for the Army. They came from RI, MILW, NYS&W and Tennessee Coal & Iron.
GM/EMD didn't build switchers in the mid-1942-3 period. With the exception of units that had components on hand, that the WPB allowed EMD to finish, switcher production ended in March, 1942. All of their engine production (3/42-11/43) went to the Navy to power landing craft (LCI,LCT,LST),DDEs(Destroyer Escorts), Frigates (Royal Navy, mostly) and some submarines, and lots and lots of portable power generators. My Dad served on an LCI with a 12 /567 for power, BTW. He was lucky. He was to have been in the first wave to invade Southern Japan's main island,Kyushu.
As for RS1s, Milwaukee and Susquehanna also lost units to the Army for use in Iran. (thanks, Paul I forgot the TC&IRR!)
PBenham wrote: During WWII, Baldwin made full use of its immense Eddystone, PA facility for the only time during the 60 years it had operations and production there. "Excess profits taxes" kept Baldwin from paying off the debt that had put it in bankruptcy. It delivered thousands of tanks, locomotives and other large equipment to ships docked at their wharf, all for next to nothing! The effort left Baldwin inadequately financed during the critical period after the war. It thus lacked the ability to re-tool itself for the post war period and develop new product lines and refine others, such as their diesel locomotives.
this was all part of GM's political power to eleminate compition.....GM had the only contract to build freight deisels on an unproven design (FT) when both ALCO and Bladwin had proven and in production freighters......the gov said "tuff only GM can build freight deisels"
Lost World wrote: Lima made tanks as well.As far as small arms go, I think they were more often made by factories specializing in the production of smaller machines. I don't know who made the rifles, but my late grandfather had a couple of Colt .45 service autos from WWII. One was made by Smith-Corona Typewriter, the other by Union Switch & Signal.Also, I just remembered something I saw during my time in the USMC (1992-1996). Some of the gun carriages beneath our 105mm howitzers dated from WWII, and a few of them were made by Pullman Standard.
Lima made tanks as well.
As far as small arms go, I think they were more often made by factories specializing in the production of smaller machines. I don't know who made the rifles, but my late grandfather had a couple of Colt .45 service autos from WWII. One was made by Smith-Corona Typewriter, the other by Union Switch & Signal.
Also, I just remembered something I saw during my time in the USMC (1992-1996). Some of the gun carriages beneath our 105mm howitzers dated from WWII, and a few of them were made by Pullman Standard.
During the Civil War Trenton Locomotive works made contract Springfield Rifles I was just curious if any of them did it during World War 2. Thanks for the answers.
As mentioned above, the Big 3 steam builders built a lot of armored equipment during WW2, which was a good fit for their production facilities. EMD built a restricted number of FT's, 567 engines wound up in a lot of LST's and destroyer escorts. FM didn't start building locomotives until 1944 but most American-built submarines had OP engines in them.
ALCO made the M-3 and M-4 tanks, the M-7 Self Propelled Gun, and the M-36 Tank Destroyer. Other ALCO plants not directly used to assemble locomotives were also part of the war effort building gun carriages for the Army, gun tubes, ammunition, and boilers for merchant ships, and turbine shafts for the U S Navy.
The Montral Locomotive Works built M-3 tanks.
All data from ALCO A Centennial Remembrance pp186-193, by Richard Steinbrenner.
Login, or register today to interact in our online community, comment on articles, receive our newsletter, manage your account online and more!
Get the Classic Trains twice-monthly newsletter