fafnir242 wrote:If the Genesis and the PL42AC were made by two different companies, why do they look so similar? I don't know if there's an actual answer to this or not, but I'm just curious.
I think the same Industrial Designer produced both designs - one Cesar Vergara (I've probably spelled his name incorrectly, however.)
M636C
When I first saw a pic of this loco I thought it was another Genesis variant. Even the name is similar to GE's. On th inside, the PL42AC's are actually EMD-type engines with a 4,200hp 710G3C-T1, and assembled in New York state by Alstom.
The Genesis carbody is part of the weight-bearing structure and excess doorways and openings would weaken it. Carbody-type locomotives (E's, F's, FA's, PA's, etc.) are similar in that the truss frame in the sides is weight-bearing. Also note the relative lack of doors on the sides of these units. Cowl-type units (F40PH, SDP40F, FP45, U30CG) are similar to hood units in that the underframe is the only weight-bearing structure and the sheet metal is strictly a covering.
http://www.hobokenterminal.com/index.html
I love this site! Enjoy!
CSSHEGEWISCH wrote: The Genesis carbody is part of the weight-bearing structure and excess doorways and openings would weaken it. Carbody-type locomotives (E's, F's, FA's, PA's, etc.) are similar in that the truss frame in the sides is weight-bearing. Also note the relative lack of doors on the sides of these units. Cowl-type units (F40PH, SDP40F, FP45, U30CG) are similar to hood units in that the underframe is the only weight-bearing structure and the sheet metal is strictly a covering.
Actually, the F40PH (and F59's) is a semi-structural carbody. If you look closely below the sidesills near the ends there are what look like bolster extensions for jacking pads but without the jacking pad. This structure transfer some of the load to the carbody side wall members. Behind the vertically ribbed, nearly square panels at each end of the carbody are diagonal tubes that take load up into the top longitudinal member. The underframe is stiff enough to build the locomotive in the conventional way where the cab and equipment are decked, then the carbody is dropped on and welded. The carbody is necessary to carry the full design buff load of 800,000 lbs. The SDP40F and F45's were not structural carbodies; in fact, one the problems on those units is that the carbody tries to contribute to the buff/drag load capacity causing those carbodies to end up full of cracks. The semi-structural design of the F40PH was done both for weight savings and to eliminate the carbody cracking of the earlier designs.
Incidently, on the F40PH's those vertical ribs on the nearly square end panels of the carbody were not on the first unit built. It was intended that area would just be flat sheeting. However, there was so much waviness due to welding the sheet to the underlying structure that it was decided to add the ribs so the waviness wouldn't be obvious, rather than try to fix it by heat shrinking or bondo. Eventually, the ribs were formed into the sheet.
Dave
http://www.locophotos.com/PhotoDetails.php?PhotoID=67288
What about the P32BWH?
chefjavier wrote: http://www.locophotos.com/PhotoDetails.php?PhotoID=67288What about the P32BWH?
These P32's are basically B32-8's equipped with HEP. 20 were built (AMTK 500-519) as interim road power while the Genesis series was being designed and built. I have seen them on a variety of trains including the Southwest Chief. They currently are assigned to Los Angeles as standby power and switchers and to Chicago as road power and switchers. http://www.gobytrain.us/amtrak/notes/index.html#P328
CSSHEGEWISCH wrote: chefjavier wrote: http://www.locophotos.com/PhotoDetails.php?PhotoID=67288What about the P32BWH?These P32's are basically B32-8's equipped with HEP. 20 were built (AMTK 500-519) as interim road power while the Genesis series was being designed and built. I have seen them on a variety of trains including the Southwest Chief. They currently are assigned to Los Angeles as standby power and switchers and to Chicago as road power and switchers. http://www.gobytrain.us/amtrak/notes/index.html#P328
Paul:
Thanks for the info. I thought they are been use in southern California.
Look so similar? In that view, the EMD F series looked similar to the Alco FA's, F-M C-Liners, and the Baldwin RF-16's.
The PL42AC's have larger front windows, fluted sides, and that's just what can be seen in the photo.
bogie_engineer wrote: CSSHEGEWISCH wrote: The Genesis carbody is part of the weight-bearing structure and excess doorways and openings would weaken it. Carbody-type locomotives (E's, F's, FA's, PA's, etc.) are similar in that the truss frame in the sides is weight-bearing. Also note the relative lack of doors on the sides of these units. Cowl-type units (F40PH, SDP40F, FP45, U30CG) are similar to hood units in that the underframe is the only weight-bearing structure and the sheet metal is strictly a covering.Actually, the F40PH (and F59's) is a semi-structural carbody. If you look closely below the sidesills near the ends there are what look like bolster extensions for jacking pads but without the jacking pad. This structure transfer some of the load to the carbody side wall members. Behind the vertically ribbed, nearly square panels at each end of the carbody are diagonal tubes that take load up into the top longitudinal member. The underframe is stiff enough to build the locomotive in the conventional way where the cab and equipment are decked, then the carbody is dropped on and welded. The carbody is necessary to carry the full design buff load of 800,000 lbs. The SDP40F and F45's were not structural carbodies; in fact, one the problems on those units is that the carbody tries to contribute to the buff/drag load capacity causing those carbodies to end up full of cracks. The semi-structural design of the F40PH was done both for weight savings and to eliminate the carbody cracking of the earlier designs.Incidently, on the F40PH's those vertical ribs on the nearly square end panels of the carbody were not on the first unit built. It was intended that area would just be flat sheeting. However, there was so much waviness due to welding the sheet to the underlying structure that it was decided to add the ribs so the waviness wouldn't be obvious, rather than try to fix it by heat shrinking or bondo. Eventually, the ribs were formed into the sheet.Dave
Very interesting! Who knew? Thanks!
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.