D&RGW ordered an empty shell for rebuilting wrecked FT. Did this shell have F7 fans on it? Gary
You mean 5481. And yes it looked just like an F7A. drgw-5481-saltlakecity_ut-_unknown_-000.jpg
The F7 body would not be an "empty shell" because as well as the radiator fans, new radiators would be required. The FT used mechanically driven fans so even if the original main generator was used, a companion alternator would be needed to provide variable frequency AC for the radiator fans (and traction motor cooling fans). The dynamic brakes, including the new 36" (apparently) cooling fan would be new. Depending on the damage, the original diesel engine might have been used. EMD usually replaced the engine in such rebuids, even if the generator and motors were reused.
If Rio Grande did the rebuild themselves, the new items could have been installed in the F7 body at La Grange, or could have been shipped separately and assembled in the railroad shops.
Peter
Seems to me that the engine in the wrecked FT would have been an early 567 with all the 'issues' including the water manifolding. Surely EMD would have used the most current 'production' engine (probably C-block by that time?) and just adjusted the fuel rack and perhaps excitation so the engine made only the horsepower the main generator could support.
Overmod Seems to me that the engine in the wrecked FT would have been an early 567 with all the 'issues' including the water manifolding. Surely EMD would have used the most current 'production' engine (probably C-block by that time?) and just adjusted the fuel rack and perhaps excitation so the engine made only the horsepower the main generator could support.
The C-block was introduced with the F9 and GP9.
The shell used by DRGW 5481 is definitely an F7 shell so a new engine would have been a 16-567B. I don't know when the original 5481 was built or what type of engine it originally had. However, the rebuild is said to have been carried out by DRGW, rather than EMD. So the railroad might have refitted the original engine if it was in good enough condition.
Many 567B blocks converted to C type power assemblies lasted a long time. the same conversion was available for 567A blocks, although it wouldn't have been available before the 567C was introduced.
M636C The C-block was introduced with the F9 and GP9.
No, the 567C was introduced in 1953 on 4 GP7s, 4 GP7Bs, 6 F7As, 5 F7Bs, 6 E8As, 5 SD7s, 1 SW9, and 6 SW900s. Additionally the 567BC was a production engine in the latter half of 1953, some 14 SW8s, 48 SW9s, 26 F7As, 25 F7Bs, 3 FP7s, 15 E8As, 78 GP7s and 21 SD7s were built with new 567BC blocks before the year was over. The point being that the 567BC used the same lower block as the 567C. The year 1953 was a huge transition year for EMD from the 567B to the 567C. Info from EMD Product Data 1/1/1959.
Ed in Kentucky
M636C The shell used by DRGW 5481 is definitely an F7 shell so a new engine would have been a 16-567B. I don't know when the original 5481 was built or what type of engine it originally had. However, the rebuild is said to have been carried out by DRGW, rather than EMD. So the railroad might have refitted the original engine if it was in good enough condition. Many 567B blocks converted to C type power assemblies lasted a long time. the same conversion was available for 567A blocks, although it wouldn't have been available before the 567C was introduced. Peter
SSW9389 M636C The shell used by DRGW 5481 is definitely an F7 shell so a new engine would have been a 16-567B. I don't know when the original 5481 was built or what type of engine it originally had. However, the rebuild is said to have been carried out by DRGW, rather than EMD. So the railroad might have refitted the original engine if it was in good enough condition. Many 567B blocks converted to C type power assemblies lasted a long time. the same conversion was available for 567A blocks, although it wouldn't have been available before the 567C was introduced. Peter D&RGW FTA #5481 was EMD serial #1902 built in March 1944. It was built with a 16-567A engine. EMD Product Data shows it with the same wiring diagram as when it was built, but there is a note that it was rebuilt on order #7006. Obviously with the new electrical equipment in the F7 carbody it would have a new wiring diagram, but that is not noted. The first 567AC engine was installed in the very last SW1 built in November 1953. Ed in Kentucky
Ed,
Thanks for the information about early 567C engine applications. What would be helpful is the date that EMD shipped the F7 carbody to DRGW.
There were nine additional locomotives built with 16-567BC engines, ordered in October 1953 but not built until 1954-55, by Clyde Engineering in Australia. These locomotives wereequipped with engines described as "unit exchange" engines which I assume wereeither used 567B engines rebuilt as 567BC or unused new 567B engines which had been rebuilt before shipment.
A number of photos were taken of the construction of these Pakistani units, and these all show the engines to have rectangular inspection covers, an indication of 567B or earlier engines. I was told that these used 567BC engines because that reduced the cost of the engines compared to 567C engines. These locomotives were paid for by the Australlian Federal Government who wished to minimize the use of imported equipment. They were fitted with Australian built traction motors, for example.
Where you have said that 567BC engines have the "same lower block", while they can take 567C assemblies, all the 567BC engines I've seen have a 567B crankcase with rectangular inspection cover.
I don't believe any 567BC engines were "built new". They would all have been built as 567B engines initially, even if they never ran in service as 567B engines. I suspect some of the locomotives you describe as being built with 567BC engines were fitted with "unit exchange" engines, and sold at a lower price than would have applied to locomotives with a 567C engine. Some of these may also have had "unit exchange" motors and generators.
Given the advantages of the 567C, EMD would have encouraged use of 567BC engines rather than rebuilt 567B engines and one imagines customers felt the same.
So we are no closer to knowing what engine might have been fitted in 5481 as rebuilt. I assume that EMD would have offered to rebuild the unit at La Grange, but that DRGW did it in house because it reduced the apparent cost, at least in the accounts. So 5481 might have had unit exchange radiator fans, maybe radiator cores and maybe the dynamic brake package to keep the cost down.
Don Strack has some notes on D&RGW #5481 here:
Rio Grande Diesel Roster, Part 4 (utahrails.net)
Another photo here shows the oval EMD builder's plate on #5481: drgw_5481_saltlakecity_ut_8_nov_1956_000.jpg
At the top of this linked page is a bit more data on #5481 as rebuilt on EMD order #7006. Note that it is a contemporary of ACL #317 rebuilt the same month. EMD Repair Jobs (utahrails.net)
EMD also delivered new F7As to B&LE, Erie, MP, NC&SL, Soo, T&P and UP in March 1951.
Thanks. However it is (obviously) listed as a rebuild at La Grange rather than by the DRGW itself. But if it received a new engine, it would have been a 567B at that date.
So, maybe this is a dumb question, but according to some quick googling, 5481 was wrecked in Dec 1950.
Was she rebuilt in 1951?
Because the 567C didn't release until early 1953 so it seems unlikely it would be an AC. It would likely just be an A.
All this discussion of AC/BC seems moot unless we establish the date of the rebuild.
Unless maybe I'm the only one that doesn't know, or I missed it up above.
YoHo1975 . . . or I missed it up above.
. . . or I missed it up above.
But it's still riding on it's FT trucks. So it isn't JUST a unit taken off the line.
The upshot here is, it isn't a C and therefore it cannot be an AC or a BC. It is either the original unmodified 567A or it's a new 567B.
YoHo1975 But it's still riding on it's FT trucks. So it isn't JUST a unit taken off the line. The upshot here is, it isn't a C and therefore it cannot be an AC or a BC. It is either the original unmodified 567A or it's a new 567B.
The shell might have been on a production line, but taken "off the line" for installation of the old trucks and whatever machinery was re-used. If EMD continued to list it as an FT, as Ed has indicated, it may have kept the 567A engine and matching generator as well as the trucks and motors. I note in the photo it is still paired with an FTB which would be logical if it retained the FT rating. A locomotive rebuilt with a new engine but retaining the old generator was often described as the new model but with an "M" suffix implying the lower rating of the original unit. Examples of these and complete rebuilds are shown in the EMD list linked by Ed earlier.
Locomotive historian Andre Kristopans has written that both ACL 317 (o/n 7005-3/51) and D&RGW 5481 (o/n 7006-3/51) were shells delivered back to their respective railroad shops without engines. This would reduce some cost in the rebuild and allow the railroad to install salvaged viable components into the reclaimed units. Both of these wrecked units were evidentily new underframe rebuilds. A new underframe would be fabricated by EMD and then cabled on the line. New carbodies would have been attached to the new underframes. These are mostly new units from the F7 production line that share multiple features with other F7s built the same month. Both of these units were hybrids in that both old and new components were used in the rebuild.
The 5481 was redelivered to the railroad with a drawbar in place of a coupler. So note that when the rebuild was complete the 5481 was still drawbarred to passenger FT booster 5482.
But as noted above it would appear to have new radiator fan assemblies and new dynamics.
Those at least were not reused.
YoHo1975 But as noted above it would appear to have new radiator fan assemblies and new dynamics. Those at least were not reused.
This is a feature of using the F7 body. It isn't possible to install the FT equipment in the F7 shell. The engine and main generator could be reused since these were of a consistent design. It would be neccessary to add a "companion alternator" to the main generator to power the radiator fan motors, since FT units had mechanical cooling fans. Using the updated design reduces the maintenance load, so the operator presumably accepted the additional first cost of the rebuild.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.