While it is in a competitor's publication, Preston Cook's article on E-units is very well written and full of interesting tidbits about the design and development of the E-units (kinds of a nice follow-up to the GM Scrapbook article on E's from the mid-60's in Trains). Preston goes into great detail on the why the E's were designed the way they were.
One example of a design change based on experience was drawing cooling air from the side instead of the front (reminded me of an exchange I had with RWM about that, we settled the issue with a duel involving IRBM's at 1,000 mi). The article reminded me that the EMC gas-electric's drew cooling air from the front, so it was natural that EMD would continue the practice with the SC's, SW's and box cab passenger engines (plus the early UP and CB&Q streamliners).
Good article. I run E-units on occasion, so it is nice to know why things were done the way they were.
Mr. Cook has had other articles on R&R. He also did a 3-part series on SD45s. It is nice that a person who was there decides to share stories from "in the trenches".
Mike WSOR engineer | HO scale since 1988 | Visit our club www.WCGandyDancers.com
.
I think what is most interesting about the article is that what you are reading is memories of conversations Preston Cook had with Bill Gardner, his boss. And Bill Gardner did write at least a couple of articles for Trains. Use the magazine database and look for the author W. A. Gardner. Bill wrote a great article in the E7 issue and again about delivering EMD locomotives. So while the article appears to be about E units, to me it's really about Bill Gardner and what he passed on to Preston Cook those many years ago.
Ed
erikem wrote: While it is in a competitor's publication, Preston Cook's article on E-units is very well written and full of interesting tidbits about the design and development of the E-units (kinds of a nice follow-up to the GM Scrapbook article on E's from the mid-60's in Trains). Preston goes into great detail on the why the E's were designed the way they were.One example of a design change based on experience was drawing cooling air from the side instead of the front (reminded me of an exchange I had with RWM about that, we settled the issue with a duel involving IRBM's at 1,000 mi). The article reminded me that the EMC gas-electric's drew cooling air from the front, so it was natural that EMD would continue the practice with the SC's, SW's and box cab passenger engines (plus the early UP and CB&Q streamliners).
gregrudd wrote:I am sure that even the designers of the Deltic in the UK used a lot of the ideas that were pioneered in the E units.
I noticed when reading the article that the one potential-design mock-up looked a lot like a Deltic!!
Delivering EMD's locomotives Trains, November 1980 page 50 putting F units into service ( B&M, C&NW, DIESEL, DL&W, EMD, ERIE, "GARDNER, W. A.", SR, ENGINE, LOCOMOTIVE, TRN )
BigJim Part 1 is in the October issue of Railfan & Railroad.
BigJim wrote:Which issue was Pt.1 in? I have found Pt.2, but need Pt.1 to get up to speed.
Part 2 has some interesting tidbits, I particularly liked his comments about the competition from Alco - the DL-109's were a relatively recent topic on this forum. Also interesting is his comments on the Alco PA/PB's, if Alco had done a better job of developing the 244, the PA/PB could have triumphed over the E's (in reality EMD's work on the 567 based on WW2 experience gave it the winning edge). I remember another article (vague recollection that it was written by Vernon Smith) stated that the PA rode at least as well as the E's and was available with a slightly higher top speed (117 MPH is what comes to mind).
Looking forwatd to reading part 3.
The Trouble with E Units Part 2 by Preston Cook. I found the 567 engine development and features data very interesting. Was the main difference between the 567 and 567A the dry sump/wet sump? Mr. Cook gives the production dates of the 567 powered E units as 10/38 to 9/42 which is true, but the EMC demonstrator E3A #822 was built in 9/38. Also the production figure of 171 does not include the model AA for Mopac or the two AB6s for Rock Island. The build date for the first of the ALCO competition the DL103b is 12/39, not 12/38. And total production of the "DL109 Family" is 78 units when you include the four B units. Other than the above proofreaders marks Preston Cook did a fine job in Part 2.
SSW9389 wrote:I found the 567 engine development and features data very interesting. Was the main difference between the 567 and 567A the dry sump/wet sump?
I found the 567 engine development and features data very interesting. Was the main difference between the 567 and 567A the dry sump/wet sump?
If I remember the article correctly, the wet sump was first used on the FT as there wasn't enough room to install the dry sump - and EMD was pleasantly surprised at how well it worked.
I'm also curious at what changes were made between the 567 and 567A, best guess is a bunch of small changes to improve reliability and manufacturability (the latter important as there was a war going on). I recall reading here and other places in that EMD finally got things right with the 567C - but don't take that as gospel...
Does sound like the F40PH was EMD's ultimate passenger engine - reliable 3,000HP engine, no extra weight with A1A trucks and head end power.
SSW9389 wrote: Delivering EMD's locomotives Trains, November 1980 page 50 putting F units into service ( B&M, C&NW, DIESEL, DL&W, EMD, ERIE, "GARDNER, W. A.", SR, ENGINE, LOCOMOTIVE, TRN ) A reputation for reliability Trains, January 1979 page 48 The E7 experience ( DIESEL, E-UNIT, E7, EMD, "GARDNER, W. A.", PRR, ENGINE, LOCOMOTIVE, TRN ) Bill Gardner also has at least 15 modeling articles, mostly in Model Railroader to his credit in the magazine database.
Trainfan: On the front page of Trains.com you can find the link to http://index.mrmag.com/ I think I searched for various combinations of the name Bill Gardner and W. A. Gardner to find the articles. The magazine database is a great research asset and it is right here on trains.com
trainfan1221 wrote: SSW9389 wrote: Delivering EMD's locomotives Trains, November 1980 page 50 putting F units into service ( B&M, C&NW, DIESEL, DL&W, EMD, ERIE, "GARDNER, W. A.", SR, ENGINE, LOCOMOTIVE, TRN ) A reputation for reliability Trains, January 1979 page 48 The E7 experience ( DIESEL, E-UNIT, E7, EMD, "GARDNER, W. A.", PRR, ENGINE, LOCOMOTIVE, TRN ) Bill Gardner also has at least 15 modeling articles, mostly in Model Railroader to his credit in the magazine database.Where did you get that site from? I never saw it before and really liked it.
The photo on the top right of page 53 of Part 2 The Trouble with E Units shows SF PA-1 #51 at EMD for repowering. This work was done in the Summer of 1954. The repower date for the Santa Fe 51 set is August 1954. The F9A in the background is identified as EMD 462. EMD 462 was built in May 1960, so the F9A in the photograph is likely to be EMD F9A demonstrator 975 built in February 1953. The 975 was sold to Northern Pacific as its 7050A.
Diesel data from A J Kristopans. See Andre's GM Serial Number Page website. See his page at http://community-1.webtv.net/ajkristopans/FREIGHTCABUNITS/ .
erikem wrote: SSW9389 wrote:I found the 567 engine development and features data very interesting. Was the main difference between the 567 and 567A the dry sump/wet sump? If I remember the article correctly, the wet sump was first used on the FT as there wasn't enough room to install the dry sump - and EMD was pleasantly surprised at how well it worked.I'm also curious at what changes were made between the 567 and 567A, best guess is a bunch of small changes to improve reliability and manufacturability (the latter important as there was a war going on). I recall reading here and other places in that EMD finally got things right with the 567C - but don't take that as gospel...Does sound like the F40PH was EMD's ultimate passenger engine - reliable 3,000HP engine, no extra weight with A1A trucks and head end power.
There were several intermediate steps between the 567 and the 567A engine, The was a series of articles published in Railfan and Railroad published by an author using the Nom de Guerre of "Win Cuisiner" covering the development of the early EMD engines up through the 645E. I remember the 567 "U' and 567 "V" were early intermediates trying to solve water leakings, power assembly mounting, and crab bolt problems in the early 567s. Not all of these engine models were used in locomotives, some were only used in Submarines and Destroyer Escorts, as EMD was tweaking the design and some variants had less than 100 engines built before changes were made resulting in a new variant.
Part 3 of Preston Cook's the Trouble With E Units is now out. I picked up a newstand copy of Railfan yesterday.
A good read and informative too. A couple of things I noticed. The C&EI "E8A" on page 53 is actually 1958's only E9A unit built. The C&EI E7A #1102 was wrecked and then rebuilt in 1958. Another clue in this photo is the Geep behind the E unit. It has a large front radiator fan. It is likely to be from a Northern Pacific order for GP9s that was completed in August 1958. There is a photo of one of these NP Geeps on the Fallen Flags site #367.
24733 08/58 (7565) Chicago & Eastern Illinois 1102
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EMD_E8
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EMD_E9
Can someone tell us about C&EI 1102. The circumstances of the wreck and if it was rebuilt to a pure E9A or an E9Am. In our correspondence last week Mr. Cook told me he had noted the "rectangular hand hole cover" on the forward engine block visible in the photo and that is why he called the unit an E8A.
24733 08/58 (7565) Chicago & Eastern Illinois 1102 - Thanks Andre!
SSW9389I loved the Bill Gardner postscript and the ELMOD Lines at the end of the article.
I loved the Bill Gardner postscript and the ELMOD Lines at the end of the article.
One of the things that impressed me about the articles was how Preston made it very clear that he was writing about what he learned from Bill Gardiner. I also liked the postscript as well - a very nice way to end the series of articles.
It was also interesting to read the explanation and see the diagrams on the winterization hatches. RWM had a post explaining how they worked, which was in good agreement with the explanation in Preston's article. Preston did go into a bit more detail about the why and what of the hatches.
beaulieuThere were several intermediate steps between the 567 and the 567A engine, The was a series of articles published in Railfan and Railroad published by an author using the Nom de Guerre of "Win Cuisiner" covering the development of the early EMD engines up through the 645E. I remember the 567 "U' and 567 "V" were early intermediates trying to solve water leakings, power assembly mounting, and crab bolt problems in the early 567s. Not all of these engine models were used in locomotives, some were only used in Submarines and Destroyer Escorts, as EMD was tweaking the design and some variants had less than 100 engines built before changes were made resulting in a new variant.
That sounds like another set of articles worth reading.
Too bad Alco didn't have the opportunity to shake out the bugs in the 241/244 engine design as EMD did with the 567. If the 244 had anywhere near the same reliability as the 567, the PA series may have been a much more serious contender - especially for the high-altitude runs on the D&RGW, UP and SP (the 244 was turbocharged).
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.