Subscriber & Member Login

Login, or register today to interact in our online community, comment on articles, receive our newsletter, manage your account online and more!

Fairbanks Morris

3590 views
58 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    March, 2011
  • 520 posts
Fairbanks Morris
Posted by NVSRR on Sunday, December 23, 2018 7:55 PM

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

  • Member since
    January, 2001
  • From: SE Minnesota
  • 6,817 posts
Posted by jrbernier on Sunday, December 23, 2018 9:13 PM

  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

  • Member since
    January, 2017
  • 2,901 posts
Posted by NWP SWP on Sunday, December 23, 2018 9:43 PM

Its Fairbanks Morse...

Named after Thaddeus Fairbanks and Charles Hosmer Morse.

Just sayin'!

Steven

Crooner, Imagineer, High School Graduate, living with Aspergers, President of the Republica Pacifica micronation,  President of the NWP-SWP System.

Hook'em Longhorns! 

  • Member since
    May, 2010
  • 5,378 posts
Posted by mbinsewi on Sunday, December 23, 2018 9:49 PM

NWP SWP
Its Fairbanks Morse...

The OP states that in his title to thread.

Mike.

  • Member since
    January, 2017
  • 2,901 posts
Posted by NWP SWP on Sunday, December 23, 2018 9:57 PM

He said Fairbanks Morris...

Steven

Crooner, Imagineer, High School Graduate, living with Aspergers, President of the Republica Pacifica micronation,  President of the NWP-SWP System.

Hook'em Longhorns! 

  • Member since
    August, 2003
  • From: Collinwood, Ohio, USA
  • 8,157 posts
Posted by gmpullman on Sunday, December 23, 2018 10:51 PM

NWP SWP
He said Fairbanks Morris...

"Tell 'em MORRIS sent 'ya"

 IMG_1728 by Edmund, on Flickr

Wink  Ed

  • Member since
    January, 2017
  • 2,901 posts
Posted by NWP SWP on Sunday, December 23, 2018 10:55 PM

^LaughLaughLaugh^

Steven

Crooner, Imagineer, High School Graduate, living with Aspergers, President of the Republica Pacifica micronation,  President of the NWP-SWP System.

Hook'em Longhorns! 

  • Member since
    May, 2004
  • 6,116 posts
Posted by 7j43k on Monday, December 24, 2018 11:31 AM

(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.

 

Ed

  • Member since
    February, 2002
  • From: Reading, PA
  • 25,990 posts
Posted by rrinker on Monday, December 24, 2018 11:46 AM

 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.

  • Member since
    May, 2004
  • 6,116 posts
Posted by 7j43k on Monday, December 24, 2018 12:21 PM

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.

 

Ed

  • Member since
    March, 2011
  • 520 posts
Posted by NVSRR on Monday, December 24, 2018 2:03 PM

Cat didnt make OP engines as far as i know

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

  • Member since
    May, 2004
  • 6,116 posts
Posted by 7j43k on Monday, December 24, 2018 2:37 PM

NVSRR

Cat didnt make OP engines as far as i know

 

 

LaughLaugh

 

Got me on that one!

 

Ed

  • Member since
    January, 2017
  • From: Southern Florida Gulf Coast
  • 4,508 posts
Posted by SeeYou190 on Monday, December 24, 2018 2:53 PM

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

.

Happily modeling the STRATTON & GILLETTE RAILROAD located in a world of plausible nonsense set in August, 1954.

  • Member since
    May, 2004
  • 6,116 posts
Posted by 7j43k on Monday, December 24, 2018 3:18 PM

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.

 

Ed

  • Member since
    December, 2015
  • 5,199 posts
Posted by BigDaddy on Monday, December 24, 2018 4:01 PM

The "Boxer" Engine is alive and well

BMW

 

Henry

COB Potomac & Northern

By the Chesapeake Bay

  • Member since
    May, 2004
  • 6,116 posts
Posted by 7j43k on Monday, December 24, 2018 4:40 PM

Well, yeah.  But it's an opposed cylinder, not opposed piston.  Sorta like half of an old VW engine.

 

Ed

  • Member since
    October, 2006
  • From: Western, MA
  • 8,155 posts
Posted by richg1998 on Monday, December 24, 2018 5:00 PM

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.

  • Member since
    February, 2002
  • From: Reading, PA
  • 25,990 posts
Posted by rrinker on Monday, December 24, 2018 6:52 PM

 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.

                                         --Randy


Modeling the Reading Railroad in the 1950's

 

Visit my web site at www.readingeastpenn.com for construction updates, DCC Info, and more.

  • Member since
    May, 2004
  • 6,116 posts
Posted by 7j43k on Monday, December 24, 2018 7:06 PM

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

Ed

  • Member since
    February, 2002
  • From: Reading, PA
  • 25,990 posts
Posted by rrinker on Monday, December 24, 2018 8:18 PM

 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.

                                       --Randy

 


Modeling the Reading Railroad in the 1950's

 

Visit my web site at www.readingeastpenn.com for construction updates, DCC Info, and more.

  • Member since
    May, 2004
  • 6,116 posts
Posted by 7j43k on Monday, December 24, 2018 8:45 PM

Well, well.  Looky here:

 

And this has a look of GM to me:

 

Ed

  • Member since
    February, 2002
  • From: Reading, PA
  • 25,990 posts
Posted by rrinker on Monday, December 24, 2018 9:16 PM

Yup, bottom one looks like a pair of 16-278's.

            --Randy


Modeling the Reading Railroad in the 1950's

 

Visit my web site at www.readingeastpenn.com for construction updates, DCC Info, and more.

  • Member since
    September, 2014
  • From: 10,430’ (3,179 m)
  • 956 posts
Posted by jjdamnit on Wednesday, December 26, 2018 1:36 PM

Hello all,

BigDaddy
The "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"

  • Member since
    September, 2013
  • 1,816 posts
Posted by caldreamer on Wednesday, December 26, 2018 3:22 PM

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.

  • Member since
    January, 2017
  • From: Southern Florida Gulf Coast
  • 4,508 posts
Posted by SeeYou190 on Wednesday, December 26, 2018 5:21 PM

jjdamnit

Hello all,

 

 
BigDaddy
The "Boxer" Engine is alive and well

 

In Porsche and Subaru too!

Hope this helps.

 

.

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.

.

-Kevin

.

Happily modeling the STRATTON & GILLETTE RAILROAD located in a world of plausible nonsense set in August, 1954.

  • Member since
    December, 2015
  • 5,199 posts
Posted by BigDaddy on Wednesday, December 26, 2018 6:00 PM

SeeYou190
The "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?

Henry

COB Potomac & Northern

By the Chesapeake Bay

  • Member since
    August, 2003
  • From: Collinwood, Ohio, USA
  • 8,157 posts
Posted by gmpullman on Wednesday, December 26, 2018 6:16 PM

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

  • Member since
    May, 2004
  • 6,116 posts
Posted by 7j43k on Wednesday, December 26, 2018 10:45 PM

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.........

 

Ed

  • Member since
    August, 2003
  • From: Collinwood, Ohio, USA
  • 8,157 posts
Posted by gmpullman on Wednesday, December 26, 2018 11:43 PM

7j43k
But, 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

  • Member since
    January, 2017
  • From: Southern Florida Gulf Coast
  • 4,508 posts
Posted by SeeYou190 on Thursday, December 27, 2018 7:17 PM

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.

.

-Kevin

.

Happily modeling the STRATTON & GILLETTE RAILROAD located in a world of plausible nonsense set in August, 1954.

Subscriber & Member Login

Login, or register today to interact in our online community, comment on articles, receive our newsletter, manage your account online and more!

Search the Community

ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
Model Railroader Newsletter See all
Sign up for our FREE e-newsletter and get model railroad news in your inbox!