Trains.com

What is it ?

9399 views
27 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    June 2004
  • From: roundhouse
  • 2,747 posts
What is it ?
Posted by Randy Stahl on Thursday, May 3, 2007 2:41 PM

It's very old , it currently wears the number CP8554, I seen this machine(and touched it yesterday, I'm in Calgary).  The machine has two pistons in each of it's cylinders , the running boards are about 16 inches higher than the others. It rides on 4 axle trucks, has twin exhaust stacks and runs long hood forward. I think it hasn't been used for many years. I thought they were all gone!! Anyone know anything about this machine?

 

 

  • Member since
    April 2007
  • 4 posts
Posted by SL guy on Thursday, May 3, 2007 3:22 PM
It's an H16-44 designed by Fairbanks Morse and built under license by Canadian Locomotive Worksin 1955.  It was retired in the early 1970's.  The "two pistons in each cylinder" is the opposed piston design of engine that was used in all Fairbanks-Morse locomotives.  They had a unique sound. By the way I hope you weren't trespassing on CP property when you touched it.
  • Member since
    June 2004
  • From: roundhouse
  • 2,747 posts
Posted by Randy Stahl on Thursday, May 3, 2007 3:55 PM

 SL guy wrote:
It's an H16-44 designed by Fairbanks Morse and built under license by Canadian Locomotive Worksin 1955.  It was retired in the early 1970's.  The "two pistons in each cylinder" is the opposed piston design of engine that was used in all Fairbanks-Morse locomotives.  They had a unique sound. By the way I hope you weren't trespassing on CP property when you touched it.

Of course I wasn't tresspassing !! I had other reasons to be there but couldn't help to notice it at the end of the track I was looking at ... like I said , I thought they were all long gone, thanks for the confirmation !!!

Randy 

  • Member since
    December 2001
  • From: Denver / La Junta
  • 10,820 posts
Posted by mudchicken on Friday, May 4, 2007 1:03 AM
 Randy Stahl wrote:

It's very old , it currently wears the number CP8554, I seen this machine(and touched it yesterday, I'm in Calgary).  

He didn't "just touch it", he hugged the thing!Laugh [(-D] I suspect that because he was there with others of that peculiar pedigree, there was also probably a "group hug".Laugh [(-D]Laugh [(-D]Laugh [(-D]

Wait 'till he has to explain that diesel-soot colored "lipstick" when he gets home! 

photos?

Mudchicken Nothing is worth taking the risk of losing a life over. Come home tonight in the same condition that you left home this morning in. Safety begins with ME.... cinscocom-west
  • Member since
    September 2002
  • From: Saginaw River
  • 948 posts
Posted by jsoderq on Friday, May 4, 2007 7:35 AM
For those who might not know, FM opposed piston engines powered submarines in WW II.
  • Member since
    March 2002
  • From: Milwaukee WI (Fox Point)
  • 11,439 posts
Posted by dknelson on Friday, May 4, 2007 8:36 AM

 

 

Dave Nelson

  • Member since
    June 2004
  • From: roundhouse
  • 2,747 posts
Posted by Randy Stahl on Saturday, May 5, 2007 7:36 AM
 mudchicken wrote:
 Randy Stahl wrote:

It's very old , it currently wears the number CP8554, I seen this machine(and touched it yesterday, I'm in Calgary).  

He didn't "just touch it", he hugged the thing!Laugh [(-D] I suspect that because he was there with others of that peculiar pedigree, there was also probably a "group hug".Laugh [(-D]Laugh [(-D]Laugh [(-D]

Wait 'till he has to explain that diesel-soot colored "lipstick" when he gets home! 

photos?


Sadly I didn't take a camera , I need to replace to one I ruined in Poland.. I.m still mad about that one!!!
FYI ,I was the only brave soul there in the rain and cold ...........
  • Member since
    January 2001
  • From: US
  • 1,537 posts
Posted by jchnhtfd on Sunday, May 6, 2007 8:45 PM

 jsoderq wrote:
For those who might not know, FM opposed piston engines powered submarines in WW II.

and did spectacularly well at it, too.  Nothing wrong with the opposed piston design (well, some maintenance issues), but FM had some serious marketing problems.

What were you lucky guys doing in Calgary, anyway?

Jamie
  • Member since
    June 2004
  • From: roundhouse
  • 2,747 posts
Posted by Randy Stahl on Monday, May 7, 2007 5:35 PM
 jchnhtfd wrote:

 jsoderq wrote:
For those who might not know, FM opposed piston engines powered submarines in WW II.

and did spectacularly well at it, too.  Nothing wrong with the opposed piston design (well, some maintenance issues), but FM had some serious marketing problems.

What were you lucky guys doing in Calgary, anyway?

I already told you .. gazing at an H-16-44

  • Member since
    May 2005
  • From: Where it's cold.
  • 555 posts
Posted by doghouse on Tuesday, May 8, 2007 7:55 AM

 

Calgary is a far ways off from Squapan.Smile,Wink, & Grin [swg] 

  • Member since
    December 2001
  • From: Denver / La Junta
  • 10,820 posts
Posted by mudchicken on Tuesday, May 8, 2007 5:21 PM

No group hug then?

Does she know about "the other woman" with the initials FM ? Whistling [:-^]

Mudchicken Nothing is worth taking the risk of losing a life over. Come home tonight in the same condition that you left home this morning in. Safety begins with ME.... cinscocom-west
  • Member since
    June 2006
  • 1,432 posts
Posted by Limitedclear on Thursday, May 10, 2007 8:54 PM
 mudchicken wrote:

No group hug then?

Does she know about "the other woman" with the initials FM ? Whistling [:-^]

WOW! And all this time I thought FM was a guy...LOL...

LC

  • Member since
    June 2004
  • From: roundhouse
  • 2,747 posts
Posted by Randy Stahl on Thursday, May 10, 2007 9:13 PM
 Limitedclear wrote:
 mudchicken wrote:

No group hug then?

Does she know about "the other woman" with the initials FM ? Whistling [:-^]

WOW! And all this time I thought FM was a guy...LOL...

LC

I saw that one coming a mile away ....LOL!!

 

  • Member since
    July 2006
  • From: The Beautiful North Georgia Mountians
  • 2,362 posts
Posted by Railfan1 on Friday, May 11, 2007 6:51 AM
Laugh [(-D]
"It's a great day to be alive" "Of all the words of tongue and pen, the saddest are these, It might have been......"
  • Member since
    December 2004
  • 707 posts
Posted by tdmidget on Thursday, June 8, 2017 12:42 AM

jsoderq
For those who might not know, FM opposed piston engines powered submarines in WW II.
 

Still do. The auxillary power in nuclear submarines is F-M. The  Navy has long liked the OP design. Few in WWII were F-M however. Most were EMC Cleveland 268/278 designs. Some near the end of the war were 567s.

 

  • Member since
    November 2008
  • 1,881 posts
Posted by Leo_Ames on Thursday, June 8, 2017 9:16 AM

Another common use for FM's were in Canadian vessels for the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Seaway. After steam turbines stopped being favored, they were the most common engine in newbuilds from about 1965-1975.

Still a few kicking, but the end is fast approaching for the last FM's on the lakes. I don't expect any will see 2018 in active use. 

tdmidget
Still do. The auxillary power in nuclear submarines is F-M. The  Navy has long liked the OP design. Few in WWII were F-M however. Most were EMC Cleveland 268/278 designs. Some near the end of the war were 567s.

Many were FM's.

I count at least 23 of 77 Gato's as having FM powerplants, which was the design that was just starting to enter service when war broke out. The majority of the rest are EMD 16-248's or 16-278A's, but a fair number were built with Hooven-Owens-Rentschler engines which weren't liked at all. 

62 of the 120 Balao class follow-ups also had FM's by my count, with EMD's accounting for the rest. And of the 29 Trench class subs built afterwards that entered service from October 1944 onward, all but one had FM's.  

I don't believe that EMD's 567 ever saw submarine use. In the United States Navy during WWII, they pretty much went into LST's and tugs. 

RME
  • Member since
    March 2016
  • 2,073 posts
Posted by RME on Thursday, June 8, 2017 12:37 PM

As far as I know the closest thing to a submarine engine actually made by EMD made it into submarine CHASERS, although the follow-on version of the engine (which I can't verify as being actually built by EMD) was indeed used in subs.

This was the somewhat-amazing 16-184A.   (The A variant reflected specific changes made by EMD to the GM design)

The sub engine design (which iirc was installed in the Albacore as well as a couple of more conventional classes) was the 16-338, with the generator handily on the bottom as a source of despair and woe.  One of you boat nerds will know who actually built the 338s.

NDG
  • Member since
    December 2013
  • 1,620 posts
Posted by NDG on Thursday, June 8, 2017 2:33 PM
 

Thank You.

 

  • Member since
    March 2007
  • From: Rhododendron, OR
  • 1,516 posts
Posted by challenger3980 on Thursday, June 8, 2017 9:55 PM

Randy Stahl

It's very old , it currently wears the number CP8554, I seen this machine(and touched it yesterday, I'm in Calgary).  The machine has two pistons in each of it's cylinders , the running boards are about 16 inches higher than the others. It rides on 4 axle trucks, has twin exhaust stacks and runs long hood forward. I think it hasn't been used for many years. I thought they were all gone!! Anyone know anything about this machine?

 

 

 

I didn't know that FM built anything with 4 AXLE trucks, you learn something new every day. Or did you mean 4 WHEEL trucks?Wink

Doug

 

 

May your flanges always stay BETWEEN the rails

  • Member since
    September 2013
  • 6,199 posts
Posted by Miningman on Thursday, June 8, 2017 10:44 PM

NDG- Not too often you even saw CN cars on CP and vice versa. Thinking there was a bit more cooperation in the mountains and BC. 

Perhaps there was no choice in some instances. Do not think it is that way so much today. 

  • Member since
    June 2004
  • From: roundhouse
  • 2,747 posts
Posted by Randy Stahl on Friday, June 9, 2017 4:46 AM

Wow, this is an old thread !

 

Randy

  • Member since
    March 2016
  • From: Burbank IL (near Clearing)
  • 13,540 posts
Posted by CSSHEGEWISCH on Friday, June 9, 2017 6:37 AM

Miningman

NDG- Not too often you even saw CN cars on CP and vice versa. Thinking there was a bit more cooperation in the mountains and BC. 

Perhaps there was no choice in some instances. Do not think it is that way so much today. 

 
I noticed that situation in 1976 around the Lakehead.  If you watched a CP train go by, it appeared that about 90% of the cars were CP cars.  The exceptions were usually cars from US railroads.
The daily commute is part of everyday life but I get two rides a day out of it. Paul
  • Member since
    April 2001
  • From: Roanoke, VA
  • 2,019 posts
Posted by BigJim on Friday, June 9, 2017 7:06 AM

challenger3980
I didn't know that FM built anything with 4 AXLE trucks, you learn something new every day. Or did you mean 4 WHEEL trucks? Doug

He meant what he said. It may not be politically correct to you, but, that is the way we refer to them...4 axle or 6 axle locos.

.

  • Member since
    March 2007
  • From: Rhododendron, OR
  • 1,516 posts
Posted by challenger3980 on Friday, June 9, 2017 9:56 AM

BigJim

 

 
challenger3980
I didn't know that FM built anything with 4 AXLE trucks, you learn something new every day. Or did you mean 4 WHEEL trucks? Doug

 

He meant what he said. It may not be politically correct to you, but, that is the way we refer to them...4 axle or 6 axle locos.

 

 

 

Big Jim, there was Nothing about my post being Politically Correct, I am about the Least PC person you will meet.

unless there was an H16-44 that DID ride on 4 axle TRUCKS that I don't know about, my post was just a Friendly (Note the Smile, Wink, Grin Smiley) point out about Randy's typo.

 If Randy had said "Rides on 4 axles" it would have been correct, but the H16-44 is a 4 Axle B-B type riding on TWO, 2 axle TRUCKS. To call it a 4 AXLE LOCOMOTIVE would be correct, to say that it rides on 4 AXLES would be correct, to say that it "RIDES ON 4 AXLE TRUCKS" is NOT correct.

MY reply was not meant in a Snippy manner, but maybe a course in READING COMPHRENSION would be time and money well spent for you, just sayin'.

Doug

May your flanges always stay BETWEEN the rails

  • Member since
    June 2004
  • From: roundhouse
  • 2,747 posts
Posted by Randy Stahl on Friday, June 9, 2017 6:27 PM

no biggie, the engine had 4 axles.

NDG
  • Member since
    December 2013
  • 1,620 posts
Posted by NDG on Friday, June 9, 2017 6:52 PM

 

Thank You.

  • Member since
    September 2013
  • 6,199 posts
Posted by Miningman on Friday, June 9, 2017 11:53 PM

Interesting story on that Baldwin.

Delta Alaska Terminal 1 660 HP DS4-4-660 BLW #73042 11/1946 Surrey, BC August 1969 David M. More

A lot of history here. This was the first Baldwin diesel in Canada, it was built for the Morrissey, Fernie & Michel Ry.
(Crows Nest Pass Coal Co., Michel, BC) as their number 1. When this very old (1903) shortline closed down (aban. 2/1958) it was finally sold 7/1964 to Johnston Terminals, New Westminster, BC. and later went to Delta Alaska Terminal (owned 1/3 each by GN, NP and MILW) where it switched the American Rail Express Co.'s S.S. Alaska a rail car ferry which operated a weekly service toWhittier, Alaska where it connected with the Alaska RR, leaving BC on Thursdays. It ceased service 3/1978. It went on to a number of different locations and owners, industrial, shortline and preservation. It is currently at the Portola Railroad Museum in California.

This was the only 660 HP Baldwin diesel in Canada. The only other new Baldwin's were the CPR's small fleet of 1000 HP units, both yard and road switchers.

NDG
  • Member since
    December 2013
  • 1,620 posts
Posted by NDG on Sunday, June 11, 2017 10:57 AM

 

Amazing the Data the Internet has provided.

 

Thank You.

 

 

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