Hello everybody,
I would like to compare them with a couple of steamlocomotives.
- What were the usuable min. cont. speeds of them? Could these early units run safely at full power around 10mp/h?
- If the Units were coupled together, could the forces be simply added the way:
1x F-3 cont. TE @ 10mph = 40,000 lbs
2x F3 @ 10mph = 80,000 lbs ?
Have many thanks in advance and a nice weekend!
lars
Lars Loco Have many thanks in advance and a nice weekend! lars
In the book Early Diesel Daze, there are various charts showing the four unit sets of FT's and F3's Drawbar Horsepower from 0 to 65 mph. One chart is on Horsepower and a chart is for drawbar ppull in pounds. These charts include the large steam locomotives also and the ABA set of PA's. The charts are on page 176 and 177. The lowest speed a diesel could run for long periods at full power varied depending on the gear ratio. The low speed for the Santa Fe units is 15mph but these had high speed gearing and the freight units with gearing limiting the top speed to 65 or 70 mph would have probably worked at full thottle down to 10 or 12 mph for heavy service. Maybe someone can add to the information about single units and low speed minimum operation under heavy load. .
For example, the FT ABBA set 106LABC was 230,975 drawbar pull in pounds at start up and 117,500 at 15mph. The FT ABBA set dropped to 30,100 at 60mph. The Three unit PA PB PA set had 122,500 drawbar pull at 15mph and 35,500 at 60mph. If the ALCO PA's had been more reliable, they would have probably won the early diesel sales. I don't have any numbers for the later GP7's, but they probably would have been close to the F3 units.
It is not clear to me if you could divide the F3 set of numbers by four and get an accurate number for a single unit, but it should be close.
The large steam (5007) a 2-10-4 was listed at 105,500 at start and 32000 at 60mph.
If you get a chance to view the complete table of the testing, you will find it interesting.
Other railroads tested their locomotives also but I don't have any reference to list.
CZ
CZ,
thank you for providing this data (the 4-Unit FT @ 15mp/h record is a very important one to me), now I have more to fill my table. Can you copy the chart from the book for me?
Something more?
Cheers
With 62:15 gearing (65 miles/hour maximum) EMD said the F3 could do 32500 lb continuously, the F7 40000 lb and the F9 was supposed to be 44000+. So F7/F9 were supposed to be able to maintain full power down to 11 mph, but the F3 would have to be geared 65:12 to match that.
The table in McCall's book gives drawbar pull for many SFe steam and diesels, as measured by their dynamometer car. As I recall they claimed 5800 dbhp from a three-unit set of Alco PAs, which of course is more than they're supposed to do. The four-unit sets of FTs/F3s/F7s were rather high, but not that high.
Thank you Tim one more time.
I was looking for something like this; example GE AC4400 :
10 mp/h -145.000 lbf
20 - 75.000
30 - 50.000
40 - 38.000
50 - 30.000
60 - 25.000
70 - 21.000
75 mp/h - 19.500 lbf
The full chart was downloaded from GE's website (can't find it now), but can not copy it to here from my computer. Have to look for a provider website first, but can send it with PM, if somebody is interested.
The table is from Dec. 7th, 1995, based on AAR standard 4390 THP available.
The large steam (5007) a 2-10-4 was listed at 105,500 at start and 32000 at 60mph. If you get a chance to view the complete table of the testing, you will find it interesting. Other railroads tested their locomotives also but I don't have any reference to list. CZ
CZ, interestingly the Texas 5007 shows 32000 here, somewhat equal /or better than a Big Boy or Class A do.
Lars Loco CZ, interestingly the Texas 5007 shows 32000 here, somewhat equal /or better than a Big Boy or Class A do. Cheerslars
Lars
That 32000 is lbs of pull, but remember, that locomotive had 74" drivers and once it was moving, could sustain speed better than the smaller drivers. The 5011 class also had the boiler pressure at 310Psi. The BB had 68" and the A used 70" drivers. Do you have any figures for the BB or A??
I don't have any figures for the Big Boy or the A class for speed.
as you wish my master....
for N&W : http://locofonic.alphalink.com.au/te1.htm
http://files.asme.org/ASMEORG/Communities/History/Landmarks/5609.pdf
and various (this was from an older thread), hope they are accurant, if not, 'will look again.
Speed Allegheny Big Boy Y6b
10MPH 105,000 128,000 121,000
20MPH 92,000 98,000 94,000
30MPH 75,000 72,000 63,000
40MPH 60,000 56,000 33,000
50MPH 48,000 40,000 N/A
(Huddleston, Kratville, Jeffries books)
Enjoy!
Lars Loco Speed Allegheny Big Boy Y6b 10MPH 105,000 128,000 121,00020MPH 92,000 98,000 94,00030MPH 75,000 72,000 63,00040MPH 60,000 56,000 33,00050MPH 48,000 40,000 N/A (Huddleston, Kratville, Jeffries books) Enjoy!lars
Thanks for posting those numbers. I sent you an email so I could forward the other table you are interested in.
Those numbers look about right. At 50mph, the 5011 SF 2-10-4 was rated at 41000. Not much I know of could match a C&O 1600 on a good day. LIMA built the higher HP engine and it showed up on the road. It seems the LIMA built 2-6-6-6 also hit close to 7600 HP corrected in one test. That has to be about the best there was, but the axle loading on those engines was very high.
The articles about the SF 5011 class engines that were leased in 1956 by the PRR was interesting also. The PRR J1's with their 70" drivers could start the coal trains better but the 5011 with the 74" drivers rolled them along faster once moving.
Horse Power wins every time at speed. I have often wondered how the PRR Q2 would have fared at speed. There are some stories in the books about their moving trains at high rate of speed between Chicago and Crestline. They were slippery on start up, but like the T1, they could run once moving. They were rated at 8000HP on the Dyno, but that might have been optimistic, since it was done at Altoona.
This is one of my pictures below taken in August of 1956 during a vacation trip with my family to Virginia. I noticed the data for the Jawn Henry and it was running in helper service in 56. Sorry about the quality, but we only had a small box camera.
It was a great time for railroading on the N&W!!!!!!!!!
Dear CZ,
I do not believe that the Q2 was so powerful.
It was based on the boiler of Pennsy 2-10-4 "J" class (based again on C&O T1), and if I am correct, Q2 tonnages were lower than that of the "J" . All had 69" dia. drivers,btw.
Pennsy was surprised, that the 5001-class on the Sandusky-line was superior regarding higher HP ( ~200 ) at higher speeds in relation to their own "J" class.
About the Q2-tests, I have to leave it for some people knowing much more about this, but the often mentioned 8000HP was more a performance stunt, than actual capacity under real conditions.
The "J" left the Q2 behind, still running when all Duplexes were dead, although it was a '30 design (a very good one!)
Very nice picture from N&W!
Lars LocoI do not believe that the Q2 was so powerful. It was based on the boiler of Pennsy 2-10-4 "J" class (based again on C&O T1), and if I am correct, Q2 tonnages were lower than that of the "J" . All had 69" dia. drivers,btw.Pennsy was surprised, that the 5001-class on the Sandusky-line was superior regarding higher HP ( ~200 ) at higher speeds in relation to their own "J" class. About the Q2-tests, I have to leave it for some people knowing much more about this, but the often mentioned 8000HP was more a performance stunt, than actual capacity under real conditions.
I agree on the Q2 testing. It was probably a stunt to claim such a high rating that could not be sustained. They also were very slippery much like the T1. One Q2 and one T1 was sent to the N&W for testing and returned quickly since they could not cut it on the N&W.
The Q2 on the testing dyno is not the same as on the road. That 8000 HP rating was on their dyno. The T1 is listed as having outperformed the four unit diesels in 1947 at any speed above 26mph. The problem is the real world wants you to start a train on a hill and move it along. I really liked the T1's and they were impressive but they were never the locomotive they should have been.
The J1 driver size is listed at 70" and the Q2 at 69". After the wheels are turned once, they probably are both somewhat less. The Q2's were sidelined early in the 52 to 53 era and so were the T1's. They just required too much maintenance for their worth.
Lars,Of course you are comparing a compound to simple locomotives, however;According to Jeffries book, your figures are a little low for the Y6b.
10 mph 126,000
20 mph 101,000
30 mph 73,000
40 mph 40,000
Depending on what chart you look at in the Kratville book, your figures for the BB are a little high.
.
Hi Jim,
as promised, I looked up again and must agree with you, your's quote is more accurate, so I will not repeat them again.. The chart at locofinic's TE 1 is pretty tiny.
'though for Kratville's charts ( page 20, 1st ed. ;-) I would agree to the line actual drawbar pull. If this is not so correct, I am really getting old and need glasses
-Oh, btw. I did not look up for the Allegheny yet.
I sent the SF chart on your email. Let me know if you received it.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.