Trains.com

FM Prime movers

4267 views
11 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
FM Prime movers
Posted by Anonymous on Wednesday, December 15, 2004 9:10 PM
[:D]I was reading the "Why some locomotives get scrapped" thread and there was a good deal said about the FM Prime movers. I heard about these when I was a little kid; it seemed like an really strange idea then and it still does now. Big question: Why? What was the selling point? Can anybody fill me in on some of the construction details? What did they do for valves? Two cycle or four? Is there a website I could go to for pictures and details?

Thanks for any info.
  • Member since
    November 2003
  • From: West Coast
  • 4,122 posts
Posted by espeefoamer on Wednesday, December 15, 2004 9:13 PM
It was a 2 cycle engine. It sounded something like a cross between an EMD and a Baldwin.
Ride Amtrak. Cats Rule, Dogs Drool.
  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Wednesday, December 15, 2004 9:43 PM
Hey there Fuzz,
FM still builds their opposed piston engines for marine and generating use. I believe that they started out in the marine business. See their corp website
http://www.fairbanksmorse.com/engines/commercial/op/op.htm

The opposed engine worked kind of like this. Picture the crank shaft in the middle. Above that crank was a set of pistons, which went up and down. The power stroke was down, toward the crank.

Basically that portion would look like your typical "in line" engine (ie. like an in-line 6 cyl car engine also called a straight-six.)

Now, add in a second set of pistons upside down, under the crank, but connected to the same crank shaft. The upside down set had a power stroke coming up toward the crank. (like another straight-six, but just connected to the bottom of the crank.)

Since it was a diesel, you have fuel injection, and then you only need exhaust valves. There is one valve train for the top set of pistons/valves and a second valve train for the lower set of pistons. If you've ever seen a V W engine (flat 4 also called pancake 4, imagine that turned up on its side, so that instead of the pistons moving horizontally, they move vertically. Hope that helps some.
- - Stack
  • Member since
    June 2001
  • From: Lombard (west of Chicago), Illinois
  • 13,681 posts
Posted by CShaveRR on Wednesday, December 15, 2004 11:33 PM
I have a phonograph record (Trains carried ads for it back in the days) called "Mr. D's Machine" (Mr. D being Rudolf Diesel). It had a recording of SP Fairbanks-Morse units in the San Francisco commuter service. I'd never heard anything like it!

Just thought--is that record (and/or its follow-up volume) available on CD now? It would be worth it!

Carl

Railroader Emeritus (practiced railroading for 46 years--and in 2010 I finally got it right!)

CAACSCOCOM--I don't want to behave improperly, so I just won't behave at all. (SM)

  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Wednesday, December 15, 2004 11:45 PM
The two pistons operate in a single cylinder. An eight cylinder model would have 16 pistons , a 10 cylinder 20 pistons. There are no heads and no valves. A crankshaft is located at each end of the vertical cylinder. A gear train connects both crankshafts, the lower shaft's timing offset 15 degrees for power reasons. Each cylinder has a bank of exhaust ports above dead center and a bank of intake ports below dead center. As the pistons move toward each other in a cylinder they cover (close) the ports and fuel is injected into the cylinder and is ignited by the compression and starts the power stroke. As they move away from each other the exhaust port is exposed and hot gas is exhausted. Then the intake port is exposed and fresh air scavanged into that cylinder from a rotory blower. This is repeated on the other cylinders. Then back to the power stroke.
No heads, no valves. No hammering valves. The engines were used extensively in US submarine service.
tom
  • Member since
    February 2002
  • 910 posts
Posted by arbfbe on Thursday, December 16, 2004 1:18 AM
dblstack,

Not even close but nice try. Read the post by Tabiery for the way it was. There wer two crankshafts one at the top of the engine and one at the bottom that were connected on the end of the assembly via gears.

When the MILW got rid of all their last FM switchers and road switchers it was a time of increased oil exploration. The FM opposed piston engines are still very common in the oil drilling industries and so the MILW got a higher residual value on these units account their prime movers were in demand. That reduced the out of pocket costs for all those MP15AC switchers that replaced the FMs and Baldwins and Alcos.
  • Member since
    January 2002
  • 4,612 posts
Posted by M636C on Thursday, December 16, 2004 6:06 AM
One of the strange results of the "Cold War" was that the Fairbanks Morse 38D8-1/8 engine became possibly the most used locomotive diesel engine in the world, right up there with the EMD 567 and 645, and definitely the most common locomotive diesel engine outside the United States. Even more strange was that Fairbanks Morse made no profit at all from this, not even for spares!

These engines were built in the Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China, known as the Kharkov 2D100 (blower version) or 10D100 (turbocharger version) in Russia or as the 10E207 in China (207mm = 8-1/8 inches).

These weren't just generally similar to the FM OP engine, they were exact copies, possibly able to use FM components. I have a Chinese manual for their version, and it illustrates the engine as well as any FM brochure.

There may have been a couple of thousand each six cylinder and ten cylinder engines built in China, but tens of thousands were built in Russia, right up to the end of the Soviet era in 1990. 6809 locomotives of class TE3 fitted with the original 2D100 engine were built up until 1973 (and each of these was a twin unit locomotive - 13618 engines in all). The TE10 series with the turbocharged 10 cylinder of 3000HP started smaller, with only 3553 locomotives of type 2TE10L (7106 prime movers). With the few hundred TE7 and TEP10 passenger units, and several later types of TE10, the D100 must have reached production numbers in locomotives to match the EMD 567 at least!

I assume the D100 was really intended for submarine use in the Soviet Navy, and just proved as good as anything else available for locomotives! It is certainly listed in a book on Soviet era marine diesels as "suitable for diesel electric propulsion".

Peter
  • Member since
    February 2002
  • From: Traveling in Middle Earth
  • 795 posts
Posted by Sterling1 on Thursday, December 16, 2004 4:57 PM
QUOTE: Originally posted by Alco GE



Here are Links to F-M Opposed Piston Engines.

http://www.sdrm.org/roster/diesel/fm/

http://www.tpub.com/engine3/en3-18.htm

http://www.trainnet.org/Libraries/Lib002/OP_ENGIN.TXT


In Diesel Electric Locomotive Service the OPs Problems were usually the Following;

Not enough Cooling Capacity or Water.

Full Throttle-Idle-Full Throttle Operation.

Oil Consumption.

Poor Maintenance.

The Upper Crankshaft.


In Marine Service there was LOTS of Cooling Water available outside the Hull. Same for Stationary Power Plant Operation.

On a Locomotive, the Cooling Water available was in the Engine, the Rads and the Expansion Tank.

The Exhaust Manifold on a OP was Water-Cooled, adding a Terrific Heat Load to the Cooling System.

All Diesel Engines were intended to Operate at a more or less uniform Temperature, and the Uphill for Two Hours, then Down, then Six Hours on the Shop did not do the Engine any good.

Vibration, Expansion and Contraction of Components would cause Oil, Fuel and Coolant Leaks.

A Rough Coupling onto Freight Cars could do all sorts of Damage.


On an OP, the Lubricating Oil for the Upper Crankshaft and it's Pistons Collected in the Top of the Engine above the Upper Pistons.

Eventually this Oil would work its way down past the Piston Rings on the Upper Pistons into to the Combustion Space in the Cylinders.

If the Engine was cool at Idle, this Oil would not Burn and would Ooze out the Exhaust Ports into the Exhaust Manifold and Exhaust Snubbers ( Mufflers ) and collect.


Lube Oil would 'Carbonize' onto Exhaust Ports Vanes in the Cylinder Liner and Manifold Interior Surfaces.

When Throttle Opened, the Oil would Burn Off with HUGE Clouds of Blue Smoke lingering behind the Train for Miles.

Four OP Units Starting Out at Run 8 with Sanders On made MORE SMOKE than a Foto Run by of ANY Steam Locomotive!

When up to Operating Temperature, the Smoke was Black, alternating Dark/Light in Accordance with the Load Regulator and Fuel Rack Settings.

Don't kid yourself! A Sweet Running OP could Out Pull General Motors any day!

The Carbon on the Ports in the Engine would Glow Red ( So would the Snubbers! ) and the Carbon would get thrown out with the Exhaust, starting LOTS of Fires in Dry Weather.

Riding inside a F-M B at Run 8 with the Engine Room Lights Out at night was something else!


In Sub Zero Weather the Diesel Fuel Injected did not always Burn if Block Cold.

The Engine would Run Rough. The Exhaust was almost Green with Fumes.

The Fuel would Collect in the Manifolds and Snubbers, then EXPLODE once Throttle Opened.

BIG BANG, and a Twenty Foot Flame out of Stacks. Great at Night! Would Crack Snubbers.

In Marine or Stationary Service the Diesel Engine was In Charge of Skilled Enginemen at all times who Monitored it's Operation.

In a Locomotive, the Diesel was Neglected for Hours on the Road at varying Speeds and Loads in all sorts of Weather.

The Running Shops were always busy doing Sanding and other Duties, and never really did see the Diesels in Operation.

A Locomotive could go Days without being seen by a Shop other than for Fuel, Water, Lube Oil and Sand.

A Trailing Unit and, especially B Units, could be Neglected for Weeks, Ugly Sounds going Unnoticed until something Broke at Full Throttle. Messy!

The Engineer was not Required to Watch the Diesels, neither was the Fireman, as they wanted to Ax the Latter's Position anyway.

They were kept Stupid to justify the Cutting of their Jobs. Hmmm.


The Upper Crankshaft of OPs had to be Removed to do a lot of Engine Work. A BIG Job just to Change a Liner, as ALL Upper Pistons and Rods had to be Unbolted from the Crankshaft before it was Lifted Out with a Traveling Crane.

The Pistons could be Removed thru the Lower Crankcase by Dropping First the Lower Piston and Connecting Rod, then Unbolting the Upper Piston and Connecting Rod from the Upper Crankshaft and Lowering it Down the Cylinder with Special Tackle.

The Reverse Procedure to Reinstall.


The Westinghouse Electricals on most C-Lines ( CN had 6 CPA-16-5 and 6 CPB-16-5, B-A1A 90 MPH Psgr. Units with FACTORY GE Electricals ) could really Pull Tonnage! So could Westinghouse Baldwins!

A C-line had more Water Capacity and was Heavier. Would Hold Rail Well where a GP9 would Slip.

GE H-Lines had Great Traction with GE Traction Motors.


The Operating Dept. Hated C-Lines as their Cabs were Cramped, the Heaters Poor, they Rode Poorly on Jointed Steel, were very Gassy, and were No Fun Getting On in Motion.

The More Modern H-Lines had too many Vertical Steps, a Small Cab, Poor Heaters, Rough Ride.

On Jointed Rail at certain Speeds a B-B H-Line Rode like an Empty Covered Hopper Swaying Side to Side.

Once the Sway became Pronounced, if the Diesel was getting Low on Water, the Low Water Switch would Activate, Drop the Engine to Idle, and Ring the Alarm Bell.

When the Water Sloshed the opposite way, the Engine would Pick Up again.

Once this Occurred, you knew the Unit would not last much longer, and a Stop at the Next Station with a Hose was in order.

An H-Line with the Rad End as Front Drafted all the Smoke into the Cab when Drifting. Just Horrid!

A 'Trainmaster' was Longer and had 6 Wheel Trucks, C-C and was a much better 'Ride', the Staggered Axle Pattern giving a distinct Beat on the Rail Joints beneath.


F-Ms, like Baldwins, were usually put into Heavy Drag Service at Full Throttle, and this wore them Out!

They might get Ten Thousand Miles a Month on them, BUT, SIX of those Ten Thousand Miles would be in the RED Zone on the Ammeter at 8 Miles an Hour, a Fact that was NOT Considered when they were in the Shops.

The Poor Cooling on F-Ms would cause Hot Engines and Shut Downs and more Load for the Units left Operating.

A Geep would not have been able to do the same job at 8 mph, and would Run many more Miles at Run 5 or 6 at 35 MPH. Looked way better, miles wise.

A Geep would usually Slip to a Stop in Rain, a F-M would Pull to a Stop with Minimal Slipping.

Best Procedure was to Run Geeps ahead of F-Ms to Clean and Sand Rail for Following F-Ms.

CN Ran their Passenger C-Lines at 85 MPH on Passenger Trains until the End of CN Opposed Piston Operation in 1969.

F-Ms were good Locomotives in their own right, but, always the Minority, and ALWAYS Abused!





Wish we had something that powerful but more reliable and not so thoroughly abused like the old F-Ms.
"There is nothing in life that compares with running a locomotive at 80-plus mph with the windows open, the traction motors screaming, the air horns fighting the rush of incoming air to make any sound at all, automobiles on adjacent highways trying and failing to catch up with you, and the unmistakable presence of raw power. You ride with fear in the pit of your stomach knowing you do not really have control of this beast." - D.C. Battle [Trains 10/2002 issue, p74.]
  • Member since
    July 2003
  • 964 posts
Posted by TH&B on Thursday, December 16, 2004 6:10 PM
Very interesting, with all these problems mentioned I wonder how the Russian railroads made out with them? They must have been able to use them to some kind of advantage.

In England the DELTIC was some kind of opposed pistoned engine locomotive, claimed to be of high maintanance but used successfully in fast passenger traffic out of King's Cross station.



  • Member since
    January 2001
  • From: US
  • 1,537 posts
Posted by jchnhtfd on Thursday, December 16, 2004 6:21 PM
For what it's worth, the F-M opposed piston diesels were developed for use on the US World War II fleet class submarines, where they worked superbly well -- under the constant care of the engine room gang. Same for the engines in the Deltics, only British subs (I think, but could well be mistaken, that they were Beardmores). As is noted above, constant speed operation for hours, very rarely changing loads (except in combat on the surface, which the Old Man tried to minimise...). Lots of coolant available. Etc.
Jamie
  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, December 16, 2004 7:00 PM
Thanks everybody for that info- Those websites ought to have lots of juicy details. Your insights and experiences actually running these is most interesting. [8D]
  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: US
  • 25,292 posts
Posted by BaltACD on Thursday, December 16, 2004 8:03 PM
FM's success in Marine applications and it failure in railroad application just amplifies the point that 'There are horses for courses/'

The operating enviornments between marine and rail applications could not be any more different than water and solid.

Never too old to have a happy childhood!

              

Join our Community!

Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.

Search the Community

Newsletter Sign-Up

By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy