Trains.com

EMD concept locomotives

9893 views
24 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    May 2011
  • 132 posts
EMD concept locomotives
Posted by IA and eastern on Friday, May 29, 2020 7:34 AM

In gp69 an EMD engineer said that they were EMD concept locomotives that were designed.What were some of these concepts. Gary

  • Member since
    November 2008
  • 1,630 posts
Posted by Leo_Ames on Friday, May 29, 2020 2:10 PM

We have a big thread around here about unbuilt locomotives that you may find of interest.

http://cs.trains.com/trn/f/741/t/220181.aspx?page=1

It includes "concept" locomotives that were proposed. But it also includes locomotives that went much further than the proposal stage before disappearing, including at least one EMD prototype that externally was nearing completion when the program was scuttled.

And it also covers other models that went so far that they were actively marketed to railroads (And presumably had been fully designed internally by EMD's engineering department), but attracted no takers in the end so were never built.

  • Member since
    April 2007
  • 3,875 posts
Posted by Convicted One on Friday, May 29, 2020 3:12 PM

How about the SD89MAC?  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EMD_SD89MAC

  • Member since
    April 2007
  • 3,875 posts
Posted by Convicted One on Friday, May 29, 2020 3:21 PM

Perhaps  the BL1  #499 with pneumatic throttle? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EMD_BL2

  • Member since
    April 2007
  • From: Palos Park, IL
  • 173 posts
Posted by bogie_engineer on Friday, May 29, 2020 9:42 PM

EMD always had one or two designers doing locomotive layout drawings in response to customer inquiries, mostly for export, and new model development initiated by sales or started internally within Engineering. When I returned to EMD in 1992 after a year with American Steel Foundries doing freight car truck development, I was first tasked with designing the SD80MAC, a year later I was working on the Amtrak inquiry that became the Acela (We were partnered with Siemens and AEG, our proposal was both electric and gas turbine power cars based on the German ICE) and the Long Island RR inquiry that became the DE30AC and DM30AC (which we regretted soon after the contract award). After that, I did some dual engine layouts for NS, several different 8-axle layouts for South Africa, some fuel cell locomotives, and a bunch of loco mods, like the SD70MAC's for CSX that had provision for HotStart generators, which was carried over to the Alaska units with HEP. I've got a binder with 21 sheets of layout, work sketch, and production part numbers for just the 70's and early 80's with about 40 entries per page that are about 1/3 locomotive arrangements and the rest modification proposals. Most are for export, for example a JTS22LC for Thailand and there's an domestic SD49. A bunch are electric locos when were working with ASEA on the GM6C and GM10B, such as the GM-D42B, no idea what that was. There's the AMT125, several versions with different trucks, and F39P and F40P with steam generators. And the SD50T and GP50T, the GP50T was nearly sold I recall to Rio Grande.

Dave

  • Member since
    May 2011
  • 132 posts
Posted by IA and eastern on Saturday, May 30, 2020 8:03 AM

Some EMD concept that i have heard of GP9 on A-1-A trucks and SW1500 on C-C trucks and SDP40A which was an SDP40 on a SDP45 frame with double steam boiler and GP39 and SD39 with SW1500 engine. Gary

  • Member since
    March 2016
  • From: Burbank IL (near Clearing)
  • 12,538 posts
Posted by CSSHEGEWISCH on Saturday, May 30, 2020 10:07 AM

Instead of A1A trucks, CN addressed the light rail issue by putting some of its GP9's on Flexicoil trucks.

The GP39, SD39 and SW1500 all had V-12 engines, although the GP/SD39 engines were turbocharged.

The daily commute is part of everyday life but I get two rides a day out of it. Paul
  • Member since
    April 2007
  • 3,875 posts
Posted by Convicted One on Saturday, May 30, 2020 10:17 AM

This predates EMD a little bit. But from the EMC era, how about the Santa Fe 1?

  • Member since
    September 2003
  • 17,839 posts
Posted by Overmod on Saturday, May 30, 2020 10:50 AM

Those ATSF trucks aren't A-1-A and weren't for spreading load on light rail.  Think of them as B trucks with a pony axle for perceived better guiding at very high speed.

Dave Goding may have a more detailed analysis.

  • Member since
    April 2007
  • From: Palos Park, IL
  • 173 posts
Posted by bogie_engineer on Saturday, May 30, 2020 12:45 PM

C

Overmod

Those ATSF trucks aren't A-1-A and weren't for spreading load on light rail.  Think of them as B trucks with a pony axle for perceived better guiding at very high speed.

Dave Goding may have a more detailed analysis.

 

Can't say that I am familiar with those trucks. The EMD A-1-A passenger truck can't accept a middle motor due to the configuration of the bolster, which also ducts the cooling air to the traction motors so those 1-B trucks must have been totally unique. I found some pictures of a brass model that show the leading axle of each truck has no brakes and appears to have smaller diameter wheels. All wheels are on a rigid wheelbase but I agree the guiding effect is probably the reason.

Dave

  • Member since
    May 2011
  • 132 posts
Posted by IA and eastern on Saturday, May 30, 2020 3:52 PM

  GP39 and the SD39 with 1500hp engines were there to show what could be built. An SD40-2 was designed to pickup current from third rail when going up hill so the traction motors were running at full current. EMD showed by studies that this would speed up freights and save fuel. Gary

  • Member since
    January 2019
  • 1,054 posts
Posted by Erik_Mag on Saturday, May 30, 2020 4:21 PM

IA and eastern

  GP39 and the SD39 with 1500hp engines were there to show what could be built.

Was the 1500hp produced by an 8 cyl turbo 645 or a 12 cyl Roots 645? Model number bieng GP37 or SD37????

The Milwaukee bought a few SDL39's where the "L" meant lightweight for some of their branch lines with 60# rail.  Suspect the 8 cyl SD would have been even lighter.

  • Member since
    March 2016
  • From: Burbank IL (near Clearing)
  • 12,538 posts
Posted by CSSHEGEWISCH on Sunday, May 31, 2020 10:08 AM

The GP15T and MP15T used a turbocharged 645 V8 to attain 1500 HP.  They were not exactly big sellers.

The daily commute is part of everyday life but I get two rides a day out of it. Paul
  • Member since
    January 2019
  • 1,054 posts
Posted by Erik_Mag on Monday, June 1, 2020 11:38 PM

I would guess that the customers for a 1500HP unit would rather make do with a roots blown V12. A short SD15T might have made a dandy locomotive for light rail branch lines, but most of those lines weren't making money.

  • Member since
    September 2010
  • From: East Coast
  • 1,005 posts
Posted by D.Carleton on Saturday, June 6, 2020 12:44 PM

Convicted One

How about the SD89MAC?  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EMD_SD89MAC

Ironic that the SD89, mechanically speaking, is what lead to today's Tier 4 SD70.

Editor Emeritus, This Week at Amtrak

  • Member since
    December 2017
  • From: I've been everywhere, man
  • 3,648 posts
Posted by SD70Dude on Saturday, June 6, 2020 4:34 PM

CSSHEGEWISCH

Instead of A1A trucks, CN addressed the light rail issue by putting some of its GP9's on Flexicoil trucks.

CN went to the extreme in getting lightweight diesels.

The GMD1 was basically a SW1200 on a GP9 frame with A1A trucks and a smaller fuel tank.  Only built for CN and Northern Alberta. 

CN had a number of ALCO/MLW and even some FM/CLC diesels with A1A trucks, including some homebuilt ones.

Greetings from Alberta

-an Articulate Malcontent

  • Member since
    September 2003
  • 17,839 posts
Posted by Overmod on Saturday, June 6, 2020 5:38 PM

I think the FM lightweights deserve some detail discussion here, because their detail design could have been applied to GMD locomotives without any particular difficulty.

And what about the 'lightweight' engines adapted to slip less on regular track via the simple although somewhat jaw-dropping expedient of removing the center axle and substituting veeeeery long drop equalizers?  That was Canada at its kooky-Canuck very best...

  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: US
  • 21,273 posts
Posted by BaltACD on Saturday, June 6, 2020 6:57 PM

Overmod
And what about the 'lightweight' engines adapted to slip less on regular track via the simple although somewhat jaw-dropping expedient of removing the center axle and substituting veeeeery long drop equalizers?  That was Canada at its kooky-Canuck very best...

Red Green could have done the job with duct tape.

  • Member since
    November 2008
  • 1,630 posts
Posted by Leo_Ames on Monday, July 27, 2020 5:26 AM

Did EMD's London operation ever propose any six axle SD style locomotives tailored for the Canadian marketplace before the SD40? I only know of A1A offerings, including the successful GMD1 branch line locomotive.

I've tried to find out in the past if EMD demonstrators during the 567 era ever had a Canadian visit at a time when the SD7 and SD9 were showing that there was at least a significant niche for such power here in the US, but never found any evidence.

  • Member since
    October 2014
  • From: La Grange Illinois USA
  • 131 posts
Posted by 16-567D3A on Monday, July 27, 2020 3:00 PM

I Can't find any reference that any SD7/9/18 demonstrated in Canada. Six motor power was considered heavy switching, hump,transfer and drag service units at that time. Canada dieselized slower and later than the US and most likely saw no need or market for that type of power.The 2 SD7 Demos were each built for a specific geographical region #990 at 314,900 lbs for western road demonstrations and #991at 372,000 lbs,one source also says equipped with hump control and may have had 60-17 gearing or lower for demonstration on roads primairly in the east midwest and south. Both wore the red and maroon of EMDs Switcher demonstrators which may have shown EMD did not forsee general road service for SDs at that time.990 was sold as SP 5308 and now preserved by UP. 991 had its steam generator removed when it was sold as B&O 760 (First six axle unit on B&O and only B&O SD7 with Dynamic brake and winterization hatchs)r/n 7400 in 1957,1826 in 1961, ret 1988. SD9 Demonstrator#5591 became DM&I 110 for heavy ore drags.110 transfered in 1967 to B&LE r/n 831, ret 1997.There were no specific SD18 (or GP18) Demos but the upgraded 1800hp units were sold before the introduction of,alongside and to roads not needing or wanting the extra HP or the maintance expence of the turbocharged GP20/SD24 and foreshadowing EMDs later 60s-70s marketing practice of offering Turboed High and normally asperated Medium HP road units

  • Member since
    July 2004
  • 2,717 posts
Posted by Paul Milenkovic on Monday, July 27, 2020 5:04 PM
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
  • Member since
    September 2003
  • 17,839 posts
Posted by Overmod on Monday, July 27, 2020 6:11 PM

If I remember correctly the Speed Merchant locomotives themselves were a bit kludged to operate with lightweight equipment.  I'm sure there was some effort to market widespread replacement of trains together with new locomotives, the object in mind being replacement of the whole electric-locomotive infrastructure (which then occurred following the FL9 order).

Thing is that the FL9s were essentially underpowered for conventional trains, and often had to run in pairs.  FM of course had answers to this, notably with the 2400hp version of the power plant in the TrainMaster, but to use that engine with four motors on the Park Avenue approach, which is both height and weight restricted, would have required the same extra axle, and it may be that the additional weight for the obligate DC equipment and non-combusting switchgear would have demanded the lightweight carbody construction to get everything in on 'just' the five axles.  How satisfactory the third-rail shoe arrangement would have to become (the setup on the Speed Merchants was laughable, a pony motor only capable of  moving the lightweight consist 20mph inside the physical Park Avenue tunnel and GCT plant; it would have to be more for effective handling of typical New Haven consists of that day).

At which point you would hit the issue of heat.  Now FMs were not poster children for cost-effective cooking circuits to begin with, and GE famously dropped the ball with the 'Jets' that became PC class E-40, which merited the name 'toaster' far more than AEM-7s did.

Perhaps there are models of the heavier FM designs and the truck arrangements they would use, and it would be interesting to have seen follow-on use of this as we entered the high-horsepower era for passenger power 'without FM or Alco' half a decade later with the advent of the SDPs and those comical GE cowls.

 Still not as good as a couple of Superior diesels running Bowes drives, which could have become substantially full-horsepower on third rail with only a little attention...

  • Member since
    September 2014
  • 1 posts
Posted by DONALD C ZUNKER on Tuesday, August 11, 2020 9:13 AM

Question: Why did 'we regret the awarding of the contract?'

 

I do know something about that... I worked at Super Steel who built those units for GM, in NY state. GM built the plant which Super Steel ran & managed.

The first unit, perhaps it was 2 units, were built in Milwaukee...

As I recall the units weighed some 20,000 pounds more than the design called for...

 

Thanks....

  • Member since
    April 2007
  • From: Palos Park, IL
  • 173 posts
Posted by bogie_engineer on Tuesday, August 11, 2020 8:03 PM

DONALD C ZUNKER

Question: Why did 'we regret the awarding of the contract?'

 

I do know something about that... I worked at Super Steel who built those units for GM, in NY state. GM built the plant which Super Steel ran & managed.

The first unit, perhaps it was 2 units, were built in Milwaukee...

As I recall the units weighed some 20,000 pounds more than the design called for...

 

Thanks....

 

Since you asked,

It's a long sad story but the gist of it was that EMD had never had a contract written in the design detail and the design oversight that LIRR insisted on. I was the design engineering lead mechanical designer of the the DE/DM30AC creating the general arrangement drawings that got us the contract. The contract was throughly reviewed and responded to with respect to the technical details, all 400 pages of them, but the commercial details did not get the review they should have and we agreed to impossible terms and conditions. LIRR was anxious to get new power but insisted on delivery of the first unit in 24 months when we said we needed 36 months to design, build, and test. Our general manager at the time desperately wanted us to get the award as he was previously the passenger loco sales manager, so he agreed to the 24 months. The design requirements required development of many mechanical and electrical systems that were totally new, such as the monocoque carbody with crash requirements beyond industry standards and the isolation mounted engine/alternator skid as well as the whole AC traction with HEP and third rail power system. The contract required the RR to review and approve all drawings before any metal was cut and they gave themselves 3 weeks for each submission review - they rarely approved our submissions on the first try. Their spec required us to submit 12 copies of each drawing folded in a special way and no Sharpies allowed to mark them. SuperSteel had to build the greenfield factory in NY state to meet local content requirements while we were doing the design work. We also had to develop suppliers to meet woman-owned and minority-owned content requirements. We had agreed verbally with Siemens in Germany to design and supply the trucks and the design and production of the first two monocoque carbodies. But after contract award as we negotiated our contract with them, they insisted they needed 6 more months than our schedule allowed for the first carbodies, so we pivoted and designed our carbody in-house. SuperSteel did supply the first carbody for buff test in LaGrange from Milwaukee but I believe all subsequent carbodies were built in NY. Regarding weight, I take much of the blame for the underestimation of the weight of all their requirements but they contributed by not allowing us to use our choice of high strength steels since they had final approval of all design decisions. For reference, we used the GE P40 carbody as an estimate of the carbody weight; our carbody ended up weighing 24,000 lbs. more. They forced suppliers on us for train control, communication, station identification, third rail shoes and mechanism and others and many of these suppliers had no urgency to get the locos built. Besides the engineers that worked for the RR, a staff of engineers from consultant STV oversaw our work as did and consultant to oversee everyone else. I must say we had did have some great people at STV who kept the RR moving. The LIRR on the other hand, had a few real bast..ds working for them that seemed to have the attitude of "our suppliers are trying to screw us so we have to screw them more". It was a real adverserial relationship unlike with any other customer we worked. FWIW, we burned more engineering design hours on this project than on the SD70ACe which followed it.

About 6 months after the contract was signed, our general manager retired and his replacement came from GM in Detroit. He did not support us having the contract and all the design manpower it consumed that could have been working on something profitable. In fact he insisted we never build another passenger loco which is why we walked away from a Metra we could have won that went instead to MPI in Boise who then developed the MP36 and went on to great success in the commuter loco field.

I know in rail forums that these locos are reviled but I'm proud of the product we created, it has many firsts and unique features for an EMD loco. Their stainless carbodies look great after over 20 years in service. It is a sad fact that no builder can afford to design a brand new passenger loco and thoroughly test it without having an order in hand; the customer wants a fully tested and debugged loco but doesn't give the time to develop it so every new loco has its problems.  

End of rant.

 

  • Member since
    July 2004
  • 2,717 posts
Posted by Paul Milenkovic on Thursday, August 13, 2020 3:26 PM

bogie_engineer

 

 
DONALD C ZUNKER

Question: Why did 'we regret the awarding of the contract?'

 

I do know something about that... I worked at Super Steel who built those units for GM, in NY state. GM built the plant which Super Steel ran & managed.

The first unit, perhaps it was 2 units, were built in Milwaukee...

As I recall the units weighed some 20,000 pounds more than the design called for...

 

Thanks....

 

 

 

Since you asked,

It's a long sad story but the gist of it was that EMD had never had a contract written in the design detail and the design oversight that LIRR insisted on. I was the design engineering lead mechanical designer of the the DE/DM30AC creating the general arrangement drawings that got us the contract. The contract was throughly reviewed and responded to with respect to the technical details, all 400 pages of them, but the commercial details did not get the review they should have and we agreed to impossible terms and conditions. LIRR was anxious to get new power but insisted on delivery of the first unit in 24 months when we said we needed 36 months to design, build, and test. Our general manager at the time desperately wanted us to get the award as he was previously the passenger loco sales manager, so he agreed to the 24 months. The design requirements required development of many mechanical and electrical systems that were totally new, such as the monocoque carbody with crash requirements beyond industry standards and the isolation mounted engine/alternator skid as well as the whole AC traction with HEP and third rail power system. The contract required the RR to review and approve all drawings before any metal was cut and they gave themselves 3 weeks for each submission review - they rarely approved our submissions on the first try. Their spec required us to submit 12 copies of each drawing folded in a special way and no Sharpies allowed to mark them. SuperSteel had to build the greenfield factory in NY state to meet local content requirements while we were doing the design work. We also had to develop suppliers to meet woman-owned and minority-owned content requirements. We had agreed verbally with Siemens in Germany to design and supply the trucks and the design and production of the first two monocoque carbodies. But after contract award as we negotiated our contract with them, they insisted they needed 6 more months than our schedule allowed for the first carbodies, so we pivoted and designed our carbody in-house. SuperSteel did supply the first carbody for buff test in LaGrange from Milwaukee but I believe all subsequent carbodies were built in NY. Regarding weight, I take much of the blame for the underestimation of the weight of all their requirements but they contributed by not allowing us to use our choice of high strength steels since they had final approval of all design decisions. For reference, we used the GE P40 carbody as an estimate of the carbody weight; our carbody ended up weighing 24,000 lbs. more. They forced suppliers on us for train control, communication, station identification, third rail shoes and mechanism and others and many of these suppliers had no urgency to get the locos built. Besides the engineers that worked for the RR, a staff of engineers from consultant STV oversaw our work as did and consultant to oversee everyone else. I must say we had did have some great people at STV who kept the RR moving. The LIRR on the other hand, had a few real bast..ds working for them that seemed to have the attitude of "our suppliers are trying to screw us so we have to screw them more". It was a real adverserial relationship unlike with any other customer we worked. FWIW, we burned more engineering design hours on this project than on the SD70ACe which followed it.

About 6 months after the contract was signed, our general manager retired and his replacement came from GM in Detroit. He did not support us having the contract and all the design manpower it consumed that could have been working on something profitable. In fact he insisted we never build another passenger loco which is why we walked away from a Metra we could have won that went instead to MPI in Boise who then developed the MP36 and went on to great success in the commuter loco field.

I know in rail forums that these locos are reviled but I'm proud of the product we created, it has many firsts and unique features for an EMD loco. Their stainless carbodies look great after over 20 years in service. It is a sad fact that no builder can afford to design a brand new passenger loco and thoroughly test it without having an order in hand; the customer wants a fully tested and debugged loco but doesn't give the time to develop it so every new loco has its problems.  

End of rant.

 

 

Great cautionary tale to all design and manufacturing engineers.

If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?

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