Why not just one rated at 4300hp?
Why not 61:22?
Agreed
ML
Lyon_Wonder wrote: If you want the prime movers mounted side by side, it would probably need to be built as non-frame supporting cab body, or GE Genesis-style monocoque and not the frame-body cowls of full width EMDs built since the FP45s. Of course, the 710's requirement for turbocharging might complicate engine placement too, which was probably another reason why the 1960s double diesels didn't have E unit-style engine placement.
What ever gave you the idea that the diesels in an E-unit were side by side? They are tandem mounted, one behind the other.
chefjavier wrote:Do you think EMD are going to design them again?
I find it highly unlikely. The market for passenger locomotives is incredibly thin and MPI has pretty well cornered the market for suburban service locomotives. Anyway, a new E-unit hasn't been built since 1964.
There is no doubt in my mind that a more efficient, technologically updated E-8 could be designed and built. There are a couple of flaws in the design that are practical concerns, which is why they don't build them anymore.
First is access to the cab. I've climbed up into the cab of an E-8 and it's a chore. You are looking at a tall, narrow, ladder going straight up. If you are going up in there with a grip (I have watched this) it is not only physically tough, but it's also dangerous.
So, my suggestion would be to stick a "porch" on the front, rather like the front end of a "Little Joe" electric, with a door in the nose- very much like a "safety cab" design. This would also give trainmen a safe platform to ride on when they are coupling up.
(Yes, I know the very same flaw exists in present day Genesis locomotives. We are talking about the E-8.)
Another flaw is the single end cab concept. To overcome that, one might design into the revised E-8 a cab on the other end. This will extend an already large locomotive- the thing goes on forever already- into something bigger. But you wouldn't have to turn it to have it go the other way- just run it around the train. Or you could just buy another E-8 to stick on the far end facing the other way. Or rebuild a turntable, or a wye.
(Again, AMTRAK has been dealing with single end cabs forever, but the concept is to make the E-8 useable for present day use.)
There is the problem of visibility. The engineers I have talked with and a little personal experience with the bulldog nosed cab tells me that looking back over the train is not easy. This is overcome by rear view semi truck type mirrors mounted on both sides- which vibrate everything out of focus. The solution would be to design the carbody into something like the BL-9, which afforded the engineer limited, but direct, visibility back, without sticking his head out the window.
To cover all eventualities, I would also add on the peculiar trailing truck the New Haven used that had a shoe to pick up "third" rail power. This would give our theoretical E-8 the ability to run into New York City. And as long as I am dreaming, I probably would put a pantograph on the roof, so that our E-8 (now looking rather busy in a lot of ways) could use the overhead wiring between Washington and Boston. There would be a lot of electrical equipment inside the carbody that would make a crowded interior even more crowded... and a maintenance nightmare.
Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, I loved the play. Because, in my head, there is no locomotive in the world more beautiful (for diesels) than the E-8.
Did you watch the series of DVD from Trains entitled "F Units in Action". It has alot of information about the units history and designs. I recommend you to watch it.
erikthered wrote:Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, I loved the play. Because, in my head, there is no locomotive in the world more beautiful (for diesels) than the E-8.
Really? You like it better then the earlier Shovelnosed engines?
Cause I think the bulldog nose looks terrible on such a long engine. It looks greate on an F-units, but not so much on the E.
As much as I like bulldog noses, I'm also aware that the compound curves involved in the nose are expensive to fabricate and are a production nightmare (lots of body putty is involved). So don't expect more bulldog noses any time soon.
Ray Patten of GE really had a better design and production idea with the flatnose design used on Alco and GE locomotives.
YoHo1975 wrote:Except that they're ugly. I mean seriously, GE has for it's entire railroad existance made passenger locos that only a mother could love.
Who said that they had to be passenger power? Consider the various UP gas-turbines, Erie 750 (4-unit testbed) and the E2b electrics on PRR for their take on the flatnose. Alco FA's and DL500's were rarely used in passenger service.
CSSHEGEWISCH wrote:As much as I like bulldog noses, I'm also aware that the compound curves involved in the nose are expensive to fabricate and are a production nightmare (lots of body putty is involved). So don't expect more bulldog noses any time soon.Ray Patten of GE really had a better design and production idea with the flatnose design used on Alco and GE locomotives.
The cabs on END F59PHI's and EMPI commuter locos seem nice. Sleeker looking than the cab on GE's Genesis.
Now, how about modern day F units?
Santa Fe originally wanted their GP60M's to have full width cowls which, with their cabless GP60Bs, would make them kind of like modern day F units. EMD objected because the cowl would add too much weight to the 4 axle loco with it's safety cab and all.
Yeah, I love the bulldog nose. It really ought to be called the Bondo nose, though. I've seen photos of the things being fabricated on the assembly floor of EMD. It looked like the Bondo got slathered on with a shovel, then sanded into shape with a mechanical sander...
But I digress. I wouldn't stick a shovel nose on an E-8 for a couple of reasons. First, it makes the locomotive look longer than it is, and let's face it, it's big enough already. Just a personal opinion, but the shovel noses reminded me of the ALCO DL-109's- the bulldog nose says EMD all the way. And I am arbitrarily, unreasonably, foolishly perhaps, an EMD fan. I chalk it up to a badly misspent youth watching EMD bulldogs pull fast (relatively- the NHRR was not real fast back in 1968), named, passenger trains while ALCO products moved freight.
From a visibility point of view for the crew, the sight lines for the standard bulldog nose might have been a little tougher than the sloped nose of the shovel head. Then again, they might not have been. Any engineers out they have any idea?
I've watched and talked to maintenance guys work on F units as well as "hood" units. They have mixed opinions. They like the idea of being able to access a busted part through a side door, especially when they can spread their tools all over a catwalk. It's not so easy to do maintenance on a cowl unit, according to them. To get to the engine components, or do electrical work, you are stuck in a really cramped space between the component needing work and the outer wall of the cowl. If you have to remove a component, it goes through the roof- a really large plate requiring a crane- or through the midget access doors on the side.
One guy told me that God intended tools to be kicked off the side of an engine, to fall onto the ground five feet below, rather than into the guts of the engine. I watched him do both...
Still... if it's raining outside and you are doing a field fix, it's better to be inside a cowl unit than getting soaked on the catwalk of a hood unit.
I'm not sure if I like the modern day look or not. The Genesis is a stainless steel shoe box that is functional but unlovely. The simple lines made it easy for the draftsmen to draw, and cheaper to build. The Coastliner locomotives remind me of the prototype UP diesel they rolled out for the Overland Express... all that's missing is the big ole (functional?) grill on the nose. That's a little too retro for my taste... but everyone has an opinion on looks, and they all differ. So I'm not going to go there any further, because I've already opened up diversions of EMD vs. GE, bulldogs vs. safety cabs, and Lord alone knows what other continuing arguments railfans debate...
The Victorian Railways in Australia had EMD manufactured diesel electrics that looked like a double ended E unit with a cab at each end. These utilized a single sixteen cylinder 567B prime mover and twin six wheel trucks with traction motors on each axle. This made them C-C units. These locomotives were used in passenger service but also saw service in freight (sorry, goods) service as well. I saw them and rode them when I was in Victoria, Australia between 1969 and 1971. Some are still in service and you can find photos and information on the Victorian Railways webpage. One difference was that the gage there was wider, 5'-3" if I remember. These units did look rather neat and they solved the problem of turning at the end of a run.
Victorian Railways has several other cab units that might be of interest just to see how things have been done "down under".
The problem of visibility to the rear on an new unit, (or an old unit for that matter) could be solved by means of a television camera incorporating anti-shake technology to assure a stable image in spite of vibration. I wonder why this isn't done now to allow good visibility at the rear of a locomotive during switching or coupling moves? It is available on high-end automobiles to allow easier and safer backing and parking.
Union Pacific used their old E8 and E9 units for freight service after passenger service ended. The E9 A units were often coupled with an F9 B unit booster for a locomotive of 3,900 horsepower, a sizeable sum in that day. Union Pacific certainly got their money's worth from these older locomotives. They were effective and long lives precisely because their conservatively rated twin switcher sized prime movers were not too big to service inside the hood style carbody and the reliability of the smaller prime movers was quite good.
Yes, I've always liked the looks of E and F hood units. I still think they are beautiful, bondo nose or no.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.