The FM power plants were know for the high power output to fuel use. Maintanance access is a different story. I know research is being done to develop a smaller version of the Oppossed piston for cars. Is that being done for locomotives? You would think yes with the power to fuel ratio on that design.
A pessimist sees a dark tunnel
An optimist sees the light at the end of the tunnel
A realist sees a frieght train
An engineer sees three idiots standing on the tracks stairing blankly in space
The 'OP' prime mover was great in constant speed applications like power plant or marine applications.
Railroad applications proved another story. Up and down engine speed and seal issues resulting in the engine eating the lube were issues. The problem of two crankshafts(one under the power plant) were maintenance issues.
I am not aware of a 'new' design, and FM also sells the old Alco '251' powerplant.
Modeling BNSF and Milwaukee Road in SW Wisconsin
Its Fairbanks Morse...
Named after Thaddeus Fairbanks and Charles Hosmer Morse.
Just sayin'!
Steve
If everything seems under control, you're not going fast enough!
NWP SWPIts Fairbanks Morse...
The OP states that in his title to thread.
Mike.
My You Tube
He said Fairbanks Morris...
NWP SWPHe said Fairbanks Morris...
"Tell 'em MORRIS sent 'ya"
IMG_1728 by Edmund, on Flickr
Ed
^^
(note: when I say "engine" below, I mean the large noisy heavy rotating thing inside the locomotive.)
I think the biggest problem for a revival of this type of engine is that it has no valves, only ports. With ports, the openings open and close exactly the same on the upstroke and the downstroke. This is incredibly limiting, and pretty much destroys any chance of increasing fuel efficiency and cleaner burning--something that's been in great demand lately.
Consider the "other" two-stroke railroad diesel engine: the EMD. That one has ports for exhaust, but valves for inlet. Thus the opening timing is not linked to the closing timing of those valves--you can close the inlet valve at the bottom of the stroke--not so for the F-M. And EMD engines are lingering pretty nicely.
GE engines are four stroke, with even more options for emission control and fuel efficiencly.
Other way around on EMDs, the intake is ports, the exhaust is the valves. THat's why even the non-turbo versions still had a Roots blower, to pressurize the galleries to force air in when the ports were uncovered.
EMD briefly toyed with 4 stroke - the 265, which was rather unreliable, but they have since updated the design with the 1010 series.
--Randy
Modeling the Reading Railroad in the 1950's
Visit my web site at www.readingeastpenn.com for construction updates, DCC Info, and more.
Randy,
Thanks for the correction. I assumed they were inlet valves as they would then get to run cooler--that's a lot of very hot exhaust gas passing over the valve faces and seats!
Now that I think on the cycle, I can see that it wouldn't work at all if it were the other way around.
Cat didnt make OP engines as far as i know
NVSRR Cat didnt make OP engines as far as i know
Got me on that one!
Opposed piston, dual crankshaft engines will not work in today's world.
.
There are many other obsolete engine designs that are also just not going to come back, sorry.
There is always research continuing with these designs, and maybe a breakthrough will occur, but it would need to be big.
All things considered, a single crankshaft overhead valve engine is the best design.
This is especially true woth Tier 4/Stage 5 emissions. All combustion technology is based on conventional engine design. The additional particulate matter created by these engines would unleash havoc on catalyzed soot filters (DPFs) and require much more frequent regeneration, and therefor increasing fuel consumption.
I can imagine DEF consumption would be higher also.
-Kevin
Living the dream.
The Fairbanks-Morse OP engine reminds me of the 2-stroke motorcycle engines from "back in the day":
They also had port cylinder entry--no valves. Essentially half of the OP engine.
They've been long banned because of the huge amounts of polution output. Fuel efficiency wasn't all that bad, as I recall. Maybe the 4-strokes could be improved, while the 2-strokes couldn't.
The "Boxer" Engine is alive and well
BMW
Henry
COB Potomac & Northern
Shenandoah Valley
Well, yeah. But it's an opposed cylinder, not opposed piston. Sorta like half of an old VW engine.
Off topic.
The US Navy DER I served on, 1962 to 1963 had four of those. To reverse our direction, the engines were stopped and restarted in the opposite direction, they were direct drive to both screws. No neutral. Two engines per screw. Every so often, I remember an engine man throwing a piston over the side. Messy to work on.
On radar patrol in the North Atlantic we steamed on one screw, constantly.
Subs had those engins also.
Rich
If you ever fall over in public, pick yourself up and say “sorry it’s been a while since I inhabited a body.” And just walk away.
That's what F-M was known for, sub diesels. A typical V engine was too wide, and to make a straight engine with enough power was either impractical, making a long crankshaft, or just plain too long to fit. The opposed piston F-M engine was just about perfect - length of the equivalent V engine, width of a straight engine, and since the sub hull was round, the extra height wasn't a problem.
And the typical German U-boat used two in-line 6 cylinder diesels, generating 3000 HP.
Typical American subs used 4 engines, developing 5400 HP. And they were bigger, so they needed the extra. Besides the F-M, they also used GM and H-O-R diesels.
Curious how that 5400 HP is exactly the same horsepower as a four-unit set of FT's.
The H-O-R engines were apparently pretty awful and were replaced with one of the other two.
I found this copy of a booklet featuring the F-M and GM engines:
https://maritime.org/doc/fleetsub/diesel/chap3.htm
Note they mention the F-M was the 38D - this is the same diesel used in FM locomotives.
Long tiem ago, I used to help my neighbor over the summer, he owned a truckign company and also did work for his dad, who had a contractng company, mainly doing road construction. All his trucks had Cummins engines, until he bought a Freightliner with a Detroit. I remember helping him tear it down - the Detroit Diesel had the same head arrangment as the larger EMD prime movers, 2 exhaust, and mechanical injection. He was a bit confused when he pulled the valve cover. It was from knowing about EMD's locomotives that I know what I was looking at.
Well, well. Looky here:
And this has a look of GM to me:
Yup, bottom one looks like a pair of 16-278's.
Hello all,
BigDaddyThe "Boxer" Engine is alive and well
In Porsche and Subaru too!
Hope this helps.
"Uhh...I didn’t know it was 'impossible' I just made it work...sorry"
I saw an H12-44 pull 150 cars out of the SP's bowl yard in Santa Clara, Ca. It was not going very fast, maybe 4 MPH and smoking like an ALCO, but it pulled them out. They were switched onto the east bay line. When the Santa Clara tower operator realigned the switchs it pushed those cars back into the bowl. Those oposed piston engines could really put out the power. This thing only had 1200HP.
jjdamnit Hello all, BigDaddy The "Boxer" Engine is alive and well In Porsche and Subaru too! Hope this helps.
BigDaddy The "Boxer" Engine is alive and well
The "boxer" engine is not an opposed piston, dual crankshaft, design like Fairbanks Morse used in their locomotive engines.
The "boxer" design is basically a V4 engine with a 180 degree V angle.
SeeYou190The "boxer" engine is not an opposed piston,
Yeah Ed straightened me out in his Xmas eve post. However reading the sub post, I'm still not sure how it really works...do the pistons travel toward each other on the compression stroke or do they alternate back and forth?
Here's a few interesting tidbits from an ICS book in my collection:
FM_OP by Edmund, on Flickr
FM_OP_0001 by Edmund, on Flickr
FM_OP_0002 by Edmund, on Flickr
FM_OP_0003 by Edmund, on Flickr
An interesting note that I didn't realise was the clearance between piston heads is only 115 to 135 thousandths. No room for carbon buildup there!
Here's the vertical drive that links the two crank shafts together:
FM_OP_0004 by Edmund, on Flickr
An amazing piece of machinery!
Cheers, Ed
Other Ed's post (above) is a great read.
But, to the chase, the pistons in an opposed piston engine travel toward each other on compression. Really, if you look at it, they HAVE to. If they didn't, there'd be no compression. And.........
7j43kBut, to the chase, the pistons in an opposed piston engine travel toward each other on compression.
One more informative page to the point:
OP_FM_0002 by Edmund, on Flickr
OP_FM_10 by Edmund, on Flickr
I have several more pages of the booklet scanned and viewable here:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/102225238@N06/albums/72157689157947401/with/45568488095/
I still have to do some sorting of the pages but there is more text that will "fill in the blanks" so to speak.
Regards, Ed
Fascinating...
This is the only inline six cylinder engine I know of where the firing order is not one of the following...
1-5-3-6-2-4 (99%)
1-4-2-6-3-5 (1%)
I had no idea... I am always amazed at how much there is to learn.