As the thread title says. I assume horsepower on EMD endcabs topped out with the 12-cylinder, 1,500 HP MP15 series and their smaller but HP-equivalent brothers, the MP15T. If EMD never built one, were any REbuilt with 16-cylinder prime movers? This may have necessitated a lengthening of the hood and/or shortening of the cab, if it were ever done.
Unrelated question: Were there ever any 20-cylinder GE or ALCo prime movers? The largest of these I know of were the 18-251Cs used in the single MLW M640, and for stationary generation.
While officially considered a transfer locomotive, the EMD TR1 was configured like an end cab switcher. Two of these cow/calf sets were produced, with each individual unit equipped with a 16-567 engine. Later transfer locomotives from EMD were regular switchers, paired in cow-calf sets (And a few had an extra calf), furthering the argument for this one counting.
Then there's Santa Fe's Beep, which was a rebuilt Baldwin switcher that Santa Fe repowered with a 16-567C. Paired with Bloomberg trucks, it was pretty much a road switcher afterwards, but it retained the classic end cab switcher configuration and largely continued to perform switching chores after its conversion.
Not aware of anything else that was configured like a switcher, which carried an EMD engine with more than 12 cylinders. But for something closely related that was non-conventional, there was a center cab EMC transfer locomotive on the Illinois Central with two 12 cylinder engines.
I actually forgot about the TR series units - weren't there more than the TR1, as well? (TR3, TR5, etc.) I remembered the Beep right after I posted, but couldn't recall from memory if it had a long hood the same height as its cab.
There were many more in the TR model series, starting with the center cab that I just mentioned which was classified as T.
After the T, EMC/EMD's concept for transfer locomotives moved to the cow-calf configuration with the TR1, which continued up to the EMD TR6. But those later TR units were just conventional switchers mated with a cabless B unit, with at most, a 12 cylinder 567.
EMD TR9 and TR12 locomotives were catalogued, but none were ordered (They'd of been cow-calf versions of the SW900 and SW1200, respectively).
I don't recall any of the TR series other than the TR-1 having 16-cylinder engines. Trains Magazine noted that the TR-1s were essentially FTs with switcher-like carbodies.
I don't think EMD had the serious intent of competing with FM's H20-44, and the transfer-locomotive market appears to have evolved towards centercabs (and road-switchers) where any HP beyond that of a 12-cylinder 567 was concerned. By the time EMD was selling 1500hp switchers they could get that power out of a V-12. Alco asked customers whether they wanted an end-cab Century series locomotive at that power and the answer was the off-centercab C415.
The Railwolf Unrelated question: Were there ever any 20-cylinder GE or ALCo prime movers?
I don't think 20-cylinder 251s would balance right, and forging the cranks would be interesting. Cooper-Bessemer has 20-cylinder genset engines (LVS series) and it would seem to follow that a 20-cylinder FDL could be made ... if there were any demand for it. To my knowledge there were and are no plans to build a HDL or GEVO in 20-cylinder configuration (the Trainorders post to the contrary having been debunked).
We had a thread on the general topic of 20 vs. 16 cylinders around Christmas time. The EMD 710 needs 20 cylinders to make comparable power to the 16-cylinder GEVO.
I for one am waiting to see what happens with the 20-cylinder Cat C175 "locomotive" engine.
Optimum bank angle for a four cycle V-20 engine would be 36 degrees versus the 45 degrees used on the 251. Compare this with 60 degree optimum bank angle for a four cycle V-12, so I would think that balancing a 45 degree V-20 would be a bit easier than balancing a 45 degree V-12. The V-20 crankshaft wouldn't have the same second harmonic cancelation as would the V-16, but should be reasonably smooth. Whether the crank could have handled the extra torque is another story.
In some ways it is surprising that 4 cycle locomotive V-12's work as well as they do. Bank angle is constrained to 45 degrees (optimum for a V-16) in order to fit in the carbody. The problem is torsional vibrations which showed up in a big way with the WW1 era Liberty V-12 aircraft engine. My guess is with the crankshaft sized for handling the torque of a V-16, that a crankshaft on a V-12 would be stiff enough to handle the torsional vibrations.
Interesting to note that GE apparently didn't seriously consider a V-8 GEVO, and instead offering a straight-8 instead.
- Erik
Thanks for the replies, guys! Great food for thought.
The Railwolf As the thread title says. I assume horsepower on EMD endcabs topped out with the 12-cylinder, 1,500 HP MP15 series and their smaller but HP-equivalent brothers, the MP15T. If EMD never built one, were any REbuilt with 16-cylinder prime movers? This may have necessitated a lengthening of the hood and/or shortening of the cab, if it were ever done. Unrelated question: Were there ever any 20-cylinder GE or ALCo prime movers? The largest of these I know of were the 18-251Cs used in the single MLW M640, and for stationary generation.
Alco didn't build any 20 cylinder engines but they did build an experimental 18 cylinder version of the 251 engine which powered the single M640 locomotive constructed by Montreal locomotive works (it was built after ALCO exited the new locomotive market in the U.S) and purchased by Canadian Pacific. That unit later became the first North American mainline freight locomotive fitted with an experimental AC traction motor system.
I am unclear as to whether or not ALCO built any 18-251 engines for other applications such as stationary power plants.
GE also has never built any 20 cylinder diesels but they did build a single 18 cylinder experimental version of the HDL engine which operated as a stationary testbed. This was never installed in a locomotive although GE may have pitched it to the industry. It was apparently rated at 7,000 HP although that may have been a gross rather than Net rating..
"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock
Alco sold some 18-251's for marine applications (The Coast Guard's 'Famous' class of cutters has twin 18-251's for main propulsion, for a notable example). Unsure if any were used as backup generators or peaker plants on land, but I wouldn't be surprised.
And while I don't know the status of 251 or OP production in this country at this point due to the EPA, the 18-251 was being actively marketed well into the 2000's at the very least by Fairbanks Morse.
http://www.fairbanksmorse.com/bin/90.pdf
Leo_Ames Alco sold some 18-251's for marine applications (The Coast Guard's 'Famous' class of cutters has twin 18-251's for main propulsion, for a notable example). Unsure if any were used as backup generators or peaker plants on land, but I wouldn't be surprised. And while I don't know the status of 251 or OP production in this country at this point due to the EPA, the 18-251 was being actively marketed well into the 2000's at the very least by Fairbanks Morse. http://www.fairbanksmorse.com/bin/90.pdf
what I have long wondered is whether or not the 18-251 engined locomotive was designed to be offered as a US model? That would have undoubtedly been a "C640". Of course it is only a might-have-been model due to the companies departure from the domestic locomive market.
Thinking of the "locomotives catalogued but never built" thread..
No
monon99 No
Incorrect, the answer is yes on both counts. There was a factory built switcher model with 16-567's, and a repowered model from another make that was done during rebulding.
Leo_Ames Monon99 No Incorrect, the answer is yes on both counts.
Monon99 No
Incorrect, the answer is yes on both counts.
I took his 'no' to refer to the immediately preceding question, whether there was intent to offer a production 18-251-powered locomotive in the States.
You very well may be correct. That's why a short one word reply, doesn't really add much as I see it. It's not even obvious what it's in response to.
If he has some insight on that question, or is disagreeing with the responses provided to the original topic, something more to go on that would be welcomed. :)
I heartily second both those thoughts.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.