Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
You are right, EMD ang GE would have been able to do it, but with a long learning curve and high risk of failure. It was an economical decision. The monocoque (or semi-) are very similar to the cab units. The skin takes over the task of the truss diagonals, like plate girder and truss bridges. The cowl came when ATSF didn't want road swichers for their premium passenger trains. Regarding the MPI locomotive: I think I read somewhere they are monocoques but can't find it anymore. When ATSF ordered theit EMD GP60M they wanted a cowl unit, but axle load limits allowed only a wide cab road switcher. Perhaps that and 8' more length made me believe that MPI locomotives have a monocoque design When GE built the Genesis P40 they used a monocoque for two reasons: Weight and height. According to a GE presentation the monocoque was 20.000 lbs lighter than with a heavy frame underbody. If you compare weights of a P40 (268,000 lbs) and MPI MP40PH-3C (289,000 lbs) There is 21,000 lbs difference with the MPI having a separate HEP generator. Perhaps a half-heartedly designed monocoque? I really don't know, what to believe. I'll try to find the monocoque source this afternoon. Regards, Volker
Tags (Optional)
Tags are keywords that get attached to your post. They are used to categorize your submission and make it easier to search for. To add tags to your post type a tag into the box below and click the "Add Tag" button.
Add Tag