Leo_Ames BEAUSABRE Sorry but the PCE's got Cleveland Diesel Model 278A's "They were powered by two 1,000 horsepower (750 kW) General Motors 12-278A diesel engines driving two shafts via single reduction gearing" Several dozen got 567's, like the USS Somersworth. https://www.navsource.org/archives/12/02849.htm
BEAUSABRE Sorry but the PCE's got Cleveland Diesel Model 278A's "They were powered by two 1,000 horsepower (750 kW) General Motors 12-278A diesel engines driving two shafts via single reduction gearing"
Sorry but the PCE's got Cleveland Diesel Model 278A's
"They were powered by two 1,000 horsepower (750 kW) General Motors 12-278A diesel engines driving two shafts via single reduction gearing"
Several dozen got 567's, like the USS Somersworth.
https://www.navsource.org/archives/12/02849.htm
Constructed at Pullman-Standard - Chicago, IL
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Bruce Frierdich I know the Milwaukee Road had FM H10/44s (or perhaps H12/44s - I am not entirely sure) from the late '40s - early '50s, until mid to late '70s.
To some extent, which builder a railroad liked was based on location. Fairbanks-Morse was located in Wisconsin, so was a favorite of the Milwaukee Road. American Locomotive Co. (ALCO) was in New York state, and sold many engines to New York Central.
Switchers were often the first diesels a railroad bought, going back to the 1930s. The diesels could keep running all day in the yard, shift after shift, where steam switchers had to be down for work (cleaning grates etc.) for hours each day. Plus the low horsepower of early diesels (600-1000HP) was well suited for switching work.
I grew up across the street from a shortline railroad that used 1940s Baldwin and Fairbanks-Morse switchers in switching and on freight trains. In the 1960s they began transitioning to EMD SW switchers, and by about 1973 they were all EMD. The line changed hands several times, and some of those 1960's GM engines are still working for the new owner.
Overmod All the references I have for the SW1 have it with nominal 65mph gearing (62:15 on 40" wheels), which may be the smallest effective pinion size for long-term service -- hence no 55mph 65:12). The "45mph" speed limit probably involves the limitations of switcher trucks, not motors.
All the references I have for the SW1 have it with nominal 65mph gearing (62:15 on 40" wheels), which may be the smallest effective pinion size for long-term service -- hence no 55mph 65:12). The "45mph" speed limit probably involves the limitations of switcher trucks, not motors.
CP seemed to prefer the RS23 for its eastern lines. Right up until the mid 90s it was pretty common to see them used in mainline freight service when not assigned to yard duties. They were quite a tall locomotive, riding on standard AAR trucks. Quite a beast to behold when accelerating.. the distinctive four stroke sound with lots of oily black smoke..I believe CP also used them out west on their lighter branchlines.
The N&W was a big buyer of thr ALCO T6 locos. It was a site to see a consist of four of them them at night humping coal in Roanoke. Three to four foot flames like a finely tuned blow torch coming out of the stack!
.
I remember reading in a book written by Charles Geletzke who wrote a number of books about his experiences working for the GTW and other railroads, that he prefered Alco switchers over the EMDs because he said in his experience, when you cracked the throttle on the Alco, it immediately moved. The EMDs on the other hand would hesitate while building up amps. Also I remember when someone asked an engineer who operated both the Alco S2 and S4 which rode better, the S2 with the Blunt trucks or the S4 with the AAR Type A, he said although there wasn't much difference, he thought the S2 did.
BTW, I did have the pleasure of getting to run the WWRR's #25, a Lima-Hamilton 1000 hp switcher, the only one operating at the time. I believe they now have another one that they have rebuilt and are putting into operation soon. I have often wondered how well these locomotives would have done on the market if Baldwin had not discontinued building them after purchasing Lima?
Ralph
I would be skeptical about how much longer Lima would have stayed in the switcher business past 1951. When you consider that Baldwin and Fairbanks Morse left the locomotive business by 1958 and Alco stopped bidding on switcher business around 1959, I doubt that Lima-Hamilton would have continued much longer than they did.
Vertical ride quality isn't the issue with Blunt and AAR type A switcher trucks; lateral compliance is. First you have to provide it (e.g. via Flexicoils or controlled lateral at the bolster) and then you have to damp it correctly. Reading tried famously to make a better-guiding two-wheel Bissel lead truck by having two fairly long springs in constant contact. But didn't see the need for much dampling other than friction and imposed load. Reportedly they got about 50 miles, wrecking various parts of tje track on the way, and then someone went out and welded the spring arrangement up solid out of resonant contact...
It is my opinion that any diesel-engined Lima product would have been comparatively short-lived. General Machinery and then Hamilton were looking at the magic of the free-piston engine (as the Germans developed it as a submarine air compressor in the Thhirties. Lima merged with Hamilton to acquire this technology for building light 4000hp road locomotives, and I suspect one of -- perhaps the only -- reason Baldwin engaged in a merger with Lima-Hamilton was to get dibs on that (to get rid of boat engines with enormous crankshafts finished like jewelry that would run light engines at nearly 30mph at idle and redlined at 625rpm, certainly nobody's idea of a practical passenger diesel-electric powerplant...)
It's interesting how many people saw a great future in free-piston engines. And how few even got them to operate... FG9, anyone?
Lima-Hamilton was starting to outpace Baldwin in the order books for switchers and was starting to get into the quickly growing road switcher market.
With the orders that they had booked for 1951 when the merger happened in late 1950, they'd of pushed Baldwin down to 5th place. So that's good reason right there why Baldwin wanted this to happen (not to mention Lima did a good business outside of the locomotive field such as with cranes, which continued in the old locomotive plant after Baldwin gained control and I'm sure BLH hoped it would help carry them through lean years in the locomotive side of the business).
Both Baldwin and Lima surely knew that the flood of orders wasn't going to last as railroads quickly dieselized and that they ultimately weren't going to survive fighting between themselves for 4th place over the scraps left behind by EMD and Alco (Fairbanks-Morse was also outperforming them both at the time).
While ultimately FM, BLH and, even Alco all showed that there wasn't room even for a 3rd manufacturer, consolidation with an eye towards survival before orders declined was no doubt a major factor behind the willingness of both firms at a time when they were both financially healthy.
Hence Baldwin's interest and Lima's willingness at a time when their diesel business was quickly growing leaps and bounds, was beginning to outpace Baldwin's diesel business, and had just posted their second million dollar dividend in the postwar years.
Lima didn't go for it because they were struggling, but I'm sure that they saw the handwriting on the wall and knew it was best for them to combine forces if they were to compete long-term.
Leo_Ames Lima-Hamilton was starting to outpace Baldwin in the order books for switchers and was starting to get into the quickly growing road switcher market. Hence Baldwin's interest and Lima's willingness at a time when their diesel business was quickly growing leaps and bounds, was beginning to outpace Baldwin's diesel business, and had just posted their second million dollar dividend in the postwar years.
Just a little bit...
But when they didn't outshop their first diesel until May 1949 and were on track in just their 2nd full year of production to beat their well established competitor in the diesel field that had already built well over a thousand diesel locomotives, growth was happening quickly. The company was profitable and there was no doubt plenty of optimism that they had a future beyond steam. It wasn't a move made out of desperation or failure.
Rather, I have no doubt that they just realized what you're saying about how they were small potatoes and weren't going to be able to remain independent against the likes of General Motors and Alco as dieselization reached the mopping up stage. Thus the willingness to combine forces at a time when the balance sheet was healthy and orders were growing.
Of course in the wake of the announcement at the end of 1950, most of those 1951 orders that would've pushed them ahead of Baldwin ended up cancelled like Southern Pacific's for 60 locomotives or shifted to a Baldwin equivalent (for instance NYC's 2nd order of LRS-1200's were changed to RS-12's and Pennsy took RT-624's in place of their order for 22 more LT-2500's).
And they intentionally fielded switchers first to get their feet wet. Their road switchers were outshopped between August and October 1950 shortly after the model was launched, barely a year after their first diesel switcher demonstrator was completed. The news they wanted to merge hit that August and the merger happened in November. Their 1,600 hp road switcher demonstrator was immediately cancelled on the eve of construction beginning.
Few wanted to purchase locomotives that were guaranteed to be orphans (although mostly follow-up orders from existing customers kept Lima's backshop fairly busy with locomotive production until the end of summer that year). Customers correctly surmised that the combined company would focus on Baldwin's own model line.
Backshop Bruce Frierdich Milwaukee and CNW, the two lines I am most familiar with, used a variety I think in part so they were not beholden to one manufacturer. Milwaukee seemed to like the FM switchers on the beer line. I have a picture somewhere of an H12/44 in the UP colors they used for passenger trains. CNW seemed to like EMD switchers. The reason so many railroads bought from a variety of manufacturers was that in the race to dieselize, order books were bulging and you bought what you could get in a timely fashion. If that meant getting your second or third choice, too bad.
Bruce Frierdich Milwaukee and CNW, the two lines I am most familiar with, used a variety I think in part so they were not beholden to one manufacturer. Milwaukee seemed to like the FM switchers on the beer line. I have a picture somewhere of an H12/44 in the UP colors they used for passenger trains. CNW seemed to like EMD switchers.
Milwaukee and CNW, the two lines I am most familiar with, used a variety I think in part so they were not beholden to one manufacturer. Milwaukee seemed to like the FM switchers on the beer line. I have a picture somewhere of an H12/44 in the UP colors they used for passenger trains. CNW seemed to like EMD switchers.
The reason so many railroads bought from a variety of manufacturers was that in the race to dieselize, order books were bulging and you bought what you could get in a timely fashion. If that meant getting your second or third choice, too bad.
Geography played at least a small role. FM was in Wisconsin, so the Milwaukee Road liked them. Alco was in New York state, and it seems New York Central bought quite a few of them.
However, a big issue was railroads coming out of the steam era didn't understand what they were buying. In steam railroading, a builder and a railroad generally worked together to design an engine, either from scratch or as a variation of an existing design. So a Pennsylvania engine looked like a Pennsy engine, whether it was built by Alco, Baldwin, or Lima.
It took a while for railroads to understand that if you bought say Baldwin and FM switchers, EMD passenger engines, and Alco road switchers, you had to train your service crews in the difference in all four makers equipment, and had to stock repair / replacement parts from each builder. That's a part of the reason many railroads later used EMD motors to replace the motors in other builder's locomotives, to standardize things.
I think that the role of re-powering has been overstated for the most part. MKT seems to be the only road that went all-in for re-powering with EMD engines. Most of the other roads sampled repowerings and found that they didn't reduce expenses by enough to justify more re-powerings.
CSSHEGEWISCHI think that the role of re-powering has been overstated for the most part. MKT seems to be the only road that went all-in for re-powering with EMD engines. Most of the other roads sampled repowerings and found that they didn't reduce expenses by enough to justify more re-powerings.
The industry got to the 60's and Alco & Baldwin were on life support and dying. EMD was king and GE started 'sniffing the market'. Carriers bought from GE because they didn't want to end up in a signle supplier enviornment with EMD/GM calling all the tunes. GE actively improved their products then EMD, to my mind, made two major mistakes in their offerings - The SD 50 and it 20 cylinder engine that had many crankshaft failures. When EMD when to AC traction they configured their electrical gear so that when there was an issue, the power from one complete truck was lost - GE by comparison configured their electrical gear so that individual axles could be cut out for electrical issues. Class 1 carriers took notice and made GE the prime engine supplier into the 21st Century. Now they occasionally 'throw a bone' to the EMD successor just to keep them in business.
BaltACD When EMD when to AC traction they configured their electrical gear so that when there was an issue, the power from one complete truck was lost - GE by comparison configured their electrical gear so that individual axles could be cut out for electrical issues.
When EMD when to AC traction they configured their electrical gear so that when there was an issue, the power from one complete truck was lost - GE by comparison configured their electrical gear so that individual axles could be cut out for electrical issues.
The inverters on the EMD AC locomotives used Gate Turn Off Thyristors (GTO) which were available in very large sizes and thus made it cheaper to use a single inverter per truck. GE used IGBT's in their inverters, with the largest devices being good for supplying only one traction motor, hence it was natural to dedicate an inverter for each traction motor. Using individual inverters per axle also got rid of the requirement for matching wheel diameters needed for the EMD units (shades of the KM diesel hydraulics).
IGBT's are much easier to drive than GTO's, though the high drive requirement with a GTO comes when trying to turn off the device.
It will be interesting to see what happens when SiC devices get large enough for locomotive use. The higher switching frequency with SiC may allow use of filters on the inverters and thus eliminate the need for inverter grade wiring.
GTO's were used in the Siemens inverters starting with the SD60MAC and continuing with the SD70MAC, 80MAC, and 90MAC. The SD70ACe and every thing since 2005 uses IGBT inverters supplied by Mitsubishi. When changing to Mitsubishi, EMD could have gone either way with truck or single axle control but stayed with truck control based on customer feedback that it wasn't a seen as a big advantage at the time; in hindsight, a mistake. EMD has since gone to single axle control on the T4 and others like the SD70ACe-P4 and the F125. The other change with the Mitsubishi inverters was EMD integrated the inverter control into the EM2000 control system; with Siemens, they supplied a SIBAS inverter control computer as part of the inverter system. The Siemens inverters also used freon evaporative cooling whereas the Mitsubishi inverters are air cooled directly.
bogie_engineerGTO's were used in the Siemens inverters starting with the SD60MAC and continuing with the SD70MAC, 80MAC, and 90MAC. The SD70ACe and every thing since 2005 uses IGBT inverters supplied by Mitsubishi. When changing to Mitsubishi, EMD could have gone either way with truck or single axle control but stayed with truck control based on customer feedback that it wasn't a seen as a big advantage at the time; in hindsight, a mistake. EMD has since gone to single axle control on the T4 and others like the SD70ACe-P4 and the F125. The other change with the Mitsubishi inverters was EMD integrated the inverter control into the EM2000 control system; with Siemens, they supplied a SIBAS inverter control computer as part of the inverter system. The Siemens inverters also used freon evaporative cooling whereas the Mitsubishi inverters are air cooled directly.
When EMD did their 'talking', I believe they were talking to the wrong people within the carrier organizations. Bean counters look at things differently than people that deal with the actual equipment on a daily basis.
Hi,
Great discussion particularly the personal anecdotes. I never saw the Alcos that CNW gathered and ran in northern Wisconsin and Upper Michigan in the '80s, in person. I have seen videos from that time and understand the RS32 and RS38 (?) were popular for yard work in and around Green Bay. I read that they could haul a lot of cars and accelerate quickly. The power plant in Wausau served by CNW had its own S2 or S4 back in the '90s. Not sure if they still run it or not. I remember seeing a monstrous UP GE AC6000CW sitting next to this ancient Alco switcher hauling coal-filled cars. There was also a small underground mine on the north side of the Milwaukee West Line tracks no more than a mile east of Elgin, IL. There was a S2 and a GE44 ton locomotives along with some ore cars gathering dust -- the track had been disconnected from the main line. At some point the engines and cars were gone and I always wondered if they were lifted back onto the tracks or transported away by semi.
Back in the 1970's I would frequently hang out at the Southern Pacific's Santa Clara yard. I had permission from the yard master to be on their property and would be in the Santa Clara tower at the north end of the yard. One day one of their H12-44's pulled 150 (Yes, I counted them) from the bowl of the yard past the Santa Clara tower where the switchman moved them to the track that runs up to Oakland. The train blew smoke and chugged along at probable less than 5 MPH, but it got all of the cars out of the bowel. The switchman threw a few other switches to allow the cars to be placed in another track in the yard. That little switcher shoved them back into the yard. To this day I still marvel at those FM switchers and every time I think about that incident I kind of smile. At that time the Santa Clara yard had 36 tracks and was a very busy yard. Today I think it has less than 6.
That might have been the Westinghouse electricals making their contribution. Baldwin switchers also had Westinghouse generators and traction motors. They were known for their ability to take a lot of abuse up to a point. Repairing them could be a real ordeal, though.
Yeah, but the generators in the Baldwins were wound for 625 rpm tops, which led to all sorts of comedy if you tried to drive them with a 567/645.
The problem existed for Alco, too: their test repower of Shark cabs essentially made them RS units above the deck electrically and mechanically.
Several PCE's got 12-567ATL engines.
Here is a 4-part series on the EMD 567ATL engine (LST/PCE engine) that I did on my website, covering everything from development to dispositions. Part I – The 12-567ATL in the LSThttps://vintagedieseldesign.com/2023/09/01/the-emd-567atl-the-power-behind-the-low-slow-target-wwii-lst/Part II – Repowershttps://vintagedieseldesign.com/2023/10/01/the-emd-567atl-part-ii-repowers/Part III – The 12-567CAhttps://vintagedieseldesign.com/2023/12/18/the-emd-567atl-part-iii-the-567ca/Part IV – LST Survivorshttps://vintagedieseldesign.com/2024/01/21/the-emd-567atl-part-iv-lst-survivors/
Overmod Yeah, but the generators in the Baldwins were wound for 625 rpm tops, which led to all sorts of comedy if you tried to drive them with a 567/645.
EJ&E discovered that with their centercabs. Either the 567's higher speed burned out the generator or the 567 couldn't keep up lube pressure at the lower speeds necessary for the generator.
bogie_engineerThe Siemens inverters also used freon evaporative cooling
timz bogie_engineer The Siemens inverters also used freon evaporative cooling Actual freon? It hasn't been outlawed?
bogie_engineer The Siemens inverters also used freon evaporative cooling
Actual freon? It hasn't been outlawed?
There are, of course, other classes of suitably low-boiling refrigerants that are not chlorofluorocarbons that would be suitable for circuit evaporative cooling, the catch being that they not be flammable in vapor phase.
Think glorified inkjet printhead at suitably large area, using compressed liquid-phase refrigerant in place of ink, with the high-speed small droplets impinging on the device directly. I first saw the approach used in high-power military electronics that couldn't use heat pipe transfer; there was a variant with (nonconductive) cryo coolant in some '80s IBM computers -- Erik will probably remember.
I don't remember the spray cooling in IBM mainframes but do remember the Cray 2 electronics immersed in some sort of Fluorocarbon liquid. Some PC gaming enthusiasts use imersion cooling for overclocked CPU's. I have seen references to spray cooling for modern electronics.
Main point of allowing the coolant to boil is the large amount of heat carried away by the phase transformation, with trick is in preventing the vapor from blocking te liquid's access to the surfaces being cooled.
Getting back to computers, the 1 PhD that Seymour Cray had in his staff developing the CDC 6600 (the first super computer and first RISC machine) was an ME whose specialty was heat transfer.
Erik_MagI don't remember the spray cooling in IBM mainframes...
...but do remember the Cray 2 electronics immersed in some sort of Fluorocarbon liquid.
Some PC gaming enthusiasts use imersion cooling for overclocked CPU's.
I have seen references to spray cooling for modern electronics.
Overmod timz bogie_engineer The Siemens inverters also used freon evaporative cooling Actual freon? It hasn't been outlawed? Not outlawed, just made increasingly expensive per pound. ...
Not outlawed, just made increasingly expensive per pound.
Had my central air/heat pump serviced last year after 32 years of faultless service - it took 3 pounds of freon to bring it up to snuff - $600 for the freon and $200 for the overall service.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.