nothing further

[dkicker]

nothing further

[Kootenay Central]

The Lube oil WOULD puddle on top of the upper pistons in the F-M/CLC OP engines. Of course, it would be 'thrown out' as the pistons went up and down when the engine was running, but, would collect when the engine was shut down. If the rings were worn, the oil would seep down past the pistons and flow out the exhaust ports into the exhaust manifolds where it would collect in pools. When the engine was started and started to warm up, the residual lube oil would cook off and burn from the exhaust heat, creating CLOUDS of dense blue smoke trailing along behind the units equal to and at times EXCEEDING the amount of smoke produced by a steam locomotive. This problem was exacerbated by cold weather. The F-M OP engine would not always fire on all cylinders when at -35 F and the cooling water temperature fell, producing dense clouds of exhaust which would inundate the town, wafting by the streetlights similar to fog. The smell was astounding. Once the engine warmed up, the smoke would clear, being replaced by black smoke, the output of same dependent on the load regulator cycling. F-M engines would carbon-up around the exhaust ports, the carbon then becoming red hot when working hard, then fly out, setting fires along the right of way. Many F-M engines on this Division would be tied up during the summer months to prevent forest fires. C. 1960 spark arresters were briefly applied to the exhaust stacks. Despite stories otherwise, an F-M right out of the shops ran smoothly, made little smoke, and out pulled a Geep any day. The C-Line with Westinghouse gear was especially surefooted on good rail and had seamless transition unlike their GE-equipped F-M kin, or the takes-ones-own-sweet-time transition on a GM of the era. Heavy on water and oil consumption, terrible to work with on the road, poor cab heaters, but, the F-Ms, like the Baldwins, sure could pull. The Nelson Engineers swore by them. On other Divisions the Hoggers swore AT them. Mountain locomotives, in the Mountains, where they belonged. Thank You.

[tdmidget]

Since you seem to be under the impression that F-M engines are a thing of the past, I should point out that they are still in production and are the auxillary power in nuclear submarines.

[tdmidget]

dkicker, since you saw fit to take issue by Pm and "do not reply", I invite you to read your OP where you say "years ago" and use the past tense at least 5 times.

[Kootenay Central]

Further to Nothing Further. In March 1975, when CPR elected to retire their remaining still-in-service 1600 HP 8-Cylinder Opposed Piston Diesel Electrics, around 40 locomotives, give or take, a Wire was sent to all points to immediately forward all operational 1600 HP units to Calgary forthwith. As a result, several trains leaving town were all OP, just like the 'Old Days'. Anyway, within days, all the remaining 1600 HP H-Line and C-line units were stored serviceable with their stacks capped, much as were the steam locomotives they had replaced. Finally, a decision came down from above, and none, as far as I know, of the 1600 HP OPs operated again. For a time 1600 HP C-line B units were used as brake slugs in Calgary, but their Diesels were not running. ( Three 12-Cylinder H-24-66 Train Masters were MUed with the three chop-nose GP9s on the hump at Alyth Yard in Cg. and they became the last Opposed Pistons units to operate on CPR in 1976. One of the complaints about the Train Masters in hump service was that, in cold weather, they were extremely gassy to Yard Personnel, idling most of the time and cooling off. ) When the 1600 HP OP fleet bit the dust en masse, several of their 8-Cylinder OPs were removed and sent to a firm in Texas. What happened to those Prime Movers beyond that point I do not know. It would be interesting to find out if ANY of the 1600 HP 8-Cylinder ex CP Opposed Piston Diesels were re-manufactured for use as Prime Movers, or were they stripped of reusable components, then scrapped in Texas? There WAS a market for 12-Cylinder OPs beyond locomotive use in stationary service. Back in the sixties, CPR had sent 12-Cylinder 2400 HP Prime Movers in gondolas removed from Train Masters that had 'donated' their GE traction motors to new C-630s abuilding at MLW. Other CP Train Masters moved to Baltimore on their own wheels, a story in itself. The end for CP OPs, was nigh. Thank You.

[Firelock76]

It's interesting, but prior to World War Two the Germans developed an opposed-piston diesel engine for aircraft use, the Junkers Jumo 205.  It wasn't  applicable for military use, but was used on some airliners and performed very well.  After the war interest in aircraft diesels disappeared, what with the jet engine just coming over the horizon.  Nowadays there's a resurgence of interest in aircraft diesels in Europe, what with the high price of aviation gasoline, especially for general aviation usages.

[BaltACD]

Guess 'dkicker' didn't like the answers he was getting.

[beaulieu]

Firelock76

It's interesting, but prior to World War Two the Germans developed an opposed-piston diesel engine for aircraft use, the Junkers Jumo 205.  It wasn't  applicable for military use, but was used on some airliners and performed very well.  After the war interest in aircraft diesels disappeared, what with the jet engine just coming over the horizon.  Nowadays there's a resurgence of interest in aircraft diesels in Europe, what with the high price of aviation gasoline, especially for general aviation usages.

 

Various Junkers Ju86 aircraft used the Jumo 205 and later Jumo 207 diesel engines in Luftwaffe bomber, patrol, and reconnaissance versions, as well as a few requisitioned Lufthansa airliners used as transports. None of these models were produced in large numbers.

[erikem]

beaulieu

 

Firelock76:

 

It's interesting, but prior to World War Two the Germans developed an opposed-piston diesel engine for aircraft use, the Junkers Jumo 205.  It wasn't  applicable for military use, but was used on some airliners and performed very well.  After the war interest in aircraft diesels disappeared, what with the jet engine just coming over the horizon.  Nowadays there's a resurgence of interest in aircraft diesels in Europe, what with the high price of aviation gasoline, especially for general aviation usages.

 

 

 

Various Junkers Ju86 aircraft used the Jumo 205 and later Jumo 207 diesel engines in Luftwaffe bomber, patrol, and reconnaissance versions, as well as a few requisitioned Lufthansa airliners used as transports. None of these models were produced in large numbers.

The San Diego Aerospace museum has a ca 1930 vintage Packard aircraft radial diesel engine on display. Main drawback is the power to weight ratio being significantly worse than gasoline engines and I suspect reliability was a concern as well.

Safran has a diesel engine intended as a replacement for the O-470 used in the Cessna 182. sfc is significantly less than the O-470, so fuel savings will make up for the extra weight in less than an hour of flying.

- Erik

[Thomas 9011]

From a mechanics point of view OP engines can be a total nightmare. With a typical locomotive engine if a cylinder throws a rod you can simply just pull the "pack" out of the engine and insert a new one. Hopefully you will not have any crankshaft damage. The whole process should not take any more than 8 hours.

With a OP engine there is no way to remove the piston on the bottom half with out removing all the pistons in the top row along with all the bearings,caps,and the crankshaft. The other option would be to remove the engine and to remove the bottom crankshaft and pull the piston out the bottom. All this work would be similar to a entire engine overhaul taking up a considerable amount of time and money. OP engines are great when they are running and new and have far less moving parts. But when they fail you are talking major downtime and a mechanical nightmare.

 

[Kootenay Central]

On locomotive F-M 38D1/8 Opposed Piston Engines, BOTH upper and lower pistons were INTENDED to be removed from the bottom only thru the crankcase doors if the upper crankshaft was NOT to be removed. The pistons, nor the cylinder liners could be removed from the TOP if the upper crankshaft was in place. If only one or two cylinders were involved, it was quicker and easier to remove those pistons from below. If the amount of pistons to be removed exceed a specified amount, i.e. 50% of the cylinders, let say ( I do not have a copy of the pertinent Machinist's Manual here. ) then it was advised to pull the upper crankshaft and remove all the pistons from ABOVE. The following is BASICALLY how pistons were removed and installed from below without removing the upper crankshaft. Several steps for fine detail have been omitted. In one or two cylinders the procedure was to loosen the lower piston crankshaft bearing cap and 'bar' the engine over manually until clearance was obtained between the crank and the lower piston, which was then dropped onto special parallel bars inserted across the crankcase sump and the piston and it's connecting rod angled out the bottom crankcase door. Then the UPPER piston was uncapped and separated from it's rod, and lowered down with special tackle thru the cylinder bore and taken out the bottom also. The upper piston was supported on other special bars inserted thru the cylinder ports to support it while it was being unbolted prior to lowering. A sleeve was put over the lower crank journal to protect it. The assembly was the reverse. Depending on the number of cylinders on the engine, certain pistons could be removed only on the left side, others only on the right. The crankshafts had to be rotated manually for unbolting and then sufficient clearance to get the pistons in/out the bottom. If a cylinder LINER had to be replaced, the upper crank had to come out. ( Would there be enough room or equipment inside a submarine to pull the upper crankshaft and a liner on an F-M engine whilst at sea? ) On 12-cylinder F-M OPs the centre of the crankshaft had to be supported when on a crane so it would not bend and get damaged from it's own weight. No cylinder heads nor valves to contend with in the OP. But two camshafts, one on each side, were required to operate the fuel injection pumps to each cylinder, one fuel injection pump on each side per cylinder. Thank You.