I'm pretty sure it is just a coincdence. Keep in mind that the Econolines were and I think still are available in both passenger and cargo configurations.
Our family had a '69 E-350 Clubwagon from '69 to '72. Kind of a fun vehicle to drive wth manual brakes, manual steering and manual choke... I also had an F-250D for a number of years.
erikem "E" is for Econoline.
"E" is for Econoline.
I noticed this in an article and felt a bit silly asking this question, though I appreciate the discussion! I do thik its interesting that both firms designating a mainly freight machine with "F" and a mainly passenger machine with "E". Even if there is no connection.
The Beaverton, Fanno Creek & Bull Mountain Railroad
"Ruby Line Service"
Overmod tree68 As is often the case, however, one might wonder if the builders even conceived of a day when the horsepower for an individual locomotive would exceed 4,000... You mean like the Baldwin 6000hp prototype of the late '30s?
tree68 As is often the case, however, one might wonder if the builders even conceived of a day when the horsepower for an individual locomotive would exceed 4,000...
You mean like the Baldwin 6000hp prototype of the late '30s?
IIRC, the GG-1's from the 1930's were good for 4,300HP continuous, but that was an electric...
GE was forecasting 4,000HP diesel's when the U25B was announced.
tree68As is often the case, however, one might wonder if the builders even conceived of a day when the horsepower for an individual locomotive would exceed 4,000...
(Granted they never put all eight genset units in at once, but you did say 'conceived', and Essl and Baldwin certainly did that and more.)
tree68 M636C I belong to the group that believe "F" stands for "Fourteen" I have no reason to doubt it - the logic is the same, the only question being which horsepower applies, 1,400 (1,350) or 1,500. Since the FT was first, then it's 1,400.
M636C I belong to the group that believe "F" stands for "Fourteen"
I have no reason to doubt it - the logic is the same, the only question being which horsepower applies, 1,400 (1,350) or 1,500. Since the FT was first, then it's 1,400.
FT - Fourteen Thirteen
Makes as much sense as everything else.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
M636CI belong to the group that believe "F" stands for "Fourteen"
As is often the case, however, one might wonder if the builders even conceived of a day when the horsepower for an individual locomotive would exceed 4,000...
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
And the corn-fused Alco naming convention? (design vs. marketing versions)
I belong to the group that believe "F" stands for "Fourteen"
Lets look at every other EMD code up to that time
S = six (hundred horsepower)
N = nine
T = twelve
E = eighteen
So the suggestion that F = fourteen (for 1350, since T was already taken) fits the series exactly....
Now it is agreed that locomotives with drawbars coupled in pairs were known as FT and those with couplers FS , so "Fourteen hundred horsepower Twin" and "Fourteen hundred horsepower Single" fit well.
It also explains why only "F" was used for later units once drawbars were no longer used.
A number of people don't like this explanation, but I've never heard a better one.
Peter
The writer of this linked article says it was a model F originally. http://utahrails.net/loconotes/emc-ft.php
KBCpresident Ford has their F150 truck, and the E150 passenger van.
Ford has their F150 truck, and the E150 passenger van.
"F" is for Ford as is the case for "C" being Chevrolet, "D" for Dodge and "J" for Jeep, won't talk about "K" being Chevy/GMC 4WD, though "W" for Dodge 4WD may come from powerWagon.
I've run across several sources that state "E" was for Eighteen hundred in agreement with several others on this thread.
I've run across at leat one source that stated "FT" stood for Freight Thirteen hundred horsepower.
- Erik
My "favourite" handbrakes are the stemwinders without a release lever. Awkward to use, and you can never get them very tight. And to release them you often need a spike or chisel from the toolbox.
How about the angle cocks with a vent like the MR ones? Or when they hide it under the steps on locomotives.
Greetings from Alberta
-an Articulate Malcontent
SD70DudeDon't forget the extra-short hoses with no slack adjustors or extensions. Whoever designs these things must never have to actually work with them.
I've invented new curse words with some of those.
What about the handbrakes with the knee-buster bars in front of them?
Of the anglecocks that are down underneath the airhose? I love having to be that close to the gladhands to turn air in.
It's been fun. But it isn't much fun anymore. Signing off for now.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.t fun any
zugmann BaltACD In that regard who was the 'wingnut' that thought there needed to be a F type knuckle that wasn't compatible with the E type? The same wingnut that puts lower shelf couplers on EVERYTHING?
BaltACD In that regard who was the 'wingnut' that thought there needed to be a F type knuckle that wasn't compatible with the E type?
The same wingnut that puts lower shelf couplers on EVERYTHING?
Don't forget the extra-short hoses with no slack adjustors or extensions.
Whoever designs these things must never have to actually work with them.
BaltACDIn that regard who was the 'wingnut' that thought there needed to be a F type knuckle that wasn't compatible with the E type?
KBCpresident should I change the title of the post to clarify what I am talkign about. The original post title was "the moderators will love me for this one" since the Ford lines have nothign to do wiht trains, but figured I didn't want to pick a fight with the forum moderators. I like this forum [:-)]
should I change the title of the post to clarify what I am talkign about.
The original post title was "the moderators will love me for this one" since the Ford lines have nothign to do wiht trains, but figured I didn't want to pick a fight with the forum moderators. I like this forum [:-)]
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
As to names to identify wheel arrangements, how about the Mikados which became MacArthurs--and, later, Mikados again? And the 4-8-4's that ran on the NC&SL were Dixies--with two subclasses, Yellow Jackets and Stripes.
And, I have ridden behind a Mogul (which was not a really large engine).
Johnny
SD70Dude jeffhergert When I first saw the title, I thought it was asking about coupler knuckles. Jeff Me too. On that note, I have access to some preserved equipment with "D" knuckles. They are significantly smaller than anything in use today.
jeffhergert When I first saw the title, I thought it was asking about coupler knuckles. Jeff
When I first saw the title, I thought it was asking about coupler knuckles.
Jeff
Me too.
On that note, I have access to some preserved equipment with "D" knuckles. They are significantly smaller than anything in use today.
tree68 LensCapOn Long thought E stood for the Eeeeeeeeeee! Railfans squealed when the first saw them. Or, Eeeeeeeeeek! Depending on your view of those new fangled machines... For your amusement: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KIkswzYzS3M
LensCapOn Long thought E stood for the Eeeeeeeeeee! Railfans squealed when the first saw them.
Or, Eeeeeeeeeek! Depending on your view of those new fangled machines...
For your amusement: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KIkswzYzS3M
Oh, I think it's wonderful to see such enthusiasum in one so young!
Oh, course, once he matures a bit he'll save all his excitement for steam locomotives! Anything else is wasted energy.
In that regard who was the 'wingnut' that thought there needed to be a F type knuckle that wasn't compatible with the E type?
The Whyte system was first detailed by F.M Whyte of the New York Central and introduced in December 1900 by way of an editorial "The Confusion of Types" (in American Engineer and Railroad Journal, v.74 p.374). From the very beginning it works as simply and nonconfusingly ... for most American wheel arrangements ... as the editorial said it did; it was expanded (and partly conflated with the European UIC coding scheme) by Lionel Wiener in his book Articulated Locomotives (from which, among other things, Le Massena derived his somewhat infamous preference for using the plus (+) rather than the dash for a hinged connection between engines.
Class numbers representing a given wheel arrangement considerably predate Whyte coding, and the FEF example only represents the Whyte code for the class in the type number. Most class letters had nothing to do with the wheel arrangement (and of course the same letter on different railroads could mean very different things; cf. a T1a on CP vs. PRR)
And then of course we get into the whole clever idea (which predates Whyte, by the way) of distinguishing wheel arrangements the same sort of way we used to do elements: the innovator first using them being the source of the name. Hence we get 'Consolidation' (from the formation of the Lehigh Valley) or "Northern' (from Northern Pacific's first construction of a heavy Mountain with a two-axle trailing truck) or 'Santa Fe' (from ATSF's first construction of a real 2-10-2). But we also get weird results when 'priority' isn't established, such as the contretemps between 'Baltic' and 'Hudson' (the Milwaukee had the design first, and named it after two much earlier experimental locomotives in Europe; the NYC actually built and ran one first - the situation was resolved somewhat Solomonically by reserving 'Baltic' for engines with a pin-guided trailing truck) or all those 4-8-4s with different names.
edblysard Steam has a little different classification that diesels…I think it is called the Whyte system, I may be wrong though on the name…
Steam has a little different classification that diesels…I think it is called the Whyte system, I may be wrong though on the name…
It is the Whyte system.
The funny part about the FEF moniker is that other railroads used what seemed like random letters (I'm sure that new classes got the next letter in line), so you ended up with a plethora of designations, even for the same wheel arrangements. Berkshires were A's, M's, S's, N's, K's, BA's, and BK's...
tree68 I thought the F stood for 1500HP. Designations got strange sometimes. UP 844 is an "FEF" class. That stands for "four eight four..."
I thought the F stood for 1500HP.
Designations got strange sometimes. UP 844 is an "FEF" class. That stands for "four eight four..."
23 17 46 11
OvermodYes, but let's not forget this was a parody of a specific prior video:
Yes, it was. For that matter, I understand the "foaming railfan" whose voice we hear was actually the general manager...
tree68For your amusement: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KIkswzYzS3M
Yes, but let's not forget this was a parody of a specific prior video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RhYXNwvcl6A
and it makes less than no sense to think actual railfans often behave that way around E units, no matter how fine their horns may be...
LensCapOnLong thought E stood for the Eeeeeeeeeee! Railfans squealed when the first saw them.
LensCapOn(anyone buying this??)
That's not the noise I recall in the parody video when he sees the 'E unit'.
So no, I'm not buying it for a quarter.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.