Anyone know what went wrong with the preservation plans for N&W #173?
I think there is a story to that, but, I can't remember just what it was at this time.
.
Juniatha,
Congrats on 4 stars!
On OP maintenance, in the UK when Deltic engines broke they were removed from the locomotive and a new one was put in place. The old one was fixed and then placed in the next locomotive needing a prime mover. This seems to be the best way to maintain an OP and still have an acceptable reliability ratio.
quoting Overmod
>>There were certainly some points in the OP design that were 'more difficult' for maintenance, for example having to pull the upper crankshaft assembly to do work on the chambers<<
What you note here as a trifle bit of 'more difficult' is an essential drawback all by itself ! It's no small difference if you just have to pull a head of a cylinder - large diesels often have individual heads - to get a one ailing point or you have to pull an entire crankshaft and assembly which demands a lot more care and simultaneous fitting to re-install , too ! Besides substantially heavier and more cumbersome work , that can easily make the difference between a locomotive to be repaired in time for a regular turn around or having to call for replacement locomotive which again has to be introduced into regular schedule and taken out again . On European railways with their strictly planned service schedules of locomotives this may demand much longer use of replacement loco than actual repair of the regular scheduled one because you can't withdraw the step-in when it's on a turn around at some remote place and scheduled trips only have it return to home depot in some days or a week ! So , it's all important repairs can be done with least effort and the quickest possible . Any design of diesel motor not fitting this basic demand is unfit for railroad service .
>>For what it's worth, there is no difficulty in getting 8000+ reliable horsepower out of an OP engine<<
It's not that simple - you can't just boost an engine's power by dropping in a stronger diesel motor , you would have to accordingly reinforce *all* the power generating and power utilizing elements , i.e. to name but major components : generator , traction motors , motor foundation and chassis , bogie frames together with their suspension , centering and pivot or traction bar devices ...
That's why the whole engine plant and framework must grow in mass according to increased motor power output . Otherwise there would be diesel motors on shelf abounding in industry to beef up diesel locomotives - *g* - as you please .
( Btw -
>>no difficulty in getting 8000+ reliable horsepower<<
- same with single crankshaft motors : the age-old , still luring , idea to 'use' that pressure normally allegedly 'squandered' on fixed cylinder head simply does not prove true , it's theory is flawed : what is gained by the extra piston is lost on the regular piston as the combustion gases can only be expanded by the same extend . Really , there is no way around having to design enough sturdiness into a motor block and components to stand up to it's power output and it does not help to save mass if that power is being distributed on two opposed crankshafts on two ends of one engine block . Special concepts of many kinds have been promoted , non has proven superior to the standard piston and crankshaft concept . Further , an opposed piston concept inevitably compromises gas flow which is an important drawback today's as it concerns efficiency and thus specific fuel consumption .
There is a site promoting another type of opposed piston motor with but *one* crank shaft , stating the concept will be of advantage for crank shaft and motor block design making a much lighter unit per power output . Only : if that's so why didn't Audi jump on it for their LeMans diesel race car ? Why in fact don't opposed pistons abound in race series at all - neither in trucks production ?
http://www.engineeringtv.com/video/Opposed-Piston-Opposed-Cylinder
advertising a new opposed piston single crankshaft motor that will save our economy - at least !
More opposed piston locomotives , see
http://www.aqpl43.dsl.pipex.com/MUSEUM/LOCOLOCO/russ/russrefr.htm )
Or , as I say : "Nothing is for free in technology !"
. Juniatha. .
Addenda :
You may also check my answering to Daveklepper at
http://cs.trains.com/trn/f/741/p/221316/2445987.aspx#2445987
It seems that the original subject, "Modelers' favorite locomotives," rather quickly devolved into a discussion of the pros and cons of F-M OP engines (which I saw in operation at the base powerplant at Osan, Korea, in 1957-58.)
So, back to the original question. Most modelers have favorites based on personal, emotional, non-negotiable excuses reasons, probably having zilch to do with the opinions of other railfans or company maintenance types and bean counters. As with potential lifemates, it's, "I like that one because that's the one I like."
So, what do I like? My fondest memories are of LIRR G5 4-6-0s and JNR D51 class 2-8-2s (which are NOT called Mikados in Japan!) Both were built in substantial numbers, did the jobs they were designed to do and lasted until the end of steam in their respective countries. As for North American diesels, covered wagons remind me of moving vans and hoods bring thoughts of portable emergency gensets. If this be heresy, so be it.
Chuck
Some of N&W's Train Masters actually lasted into the mid 1970's. Their last runs were in 1976 and included both former Virginian examples with their OP's and the Alco repowerings from Wabash (The only carrier to repower a Train Master). Last run of a repowering was the #3594 in February of that year and the #173, former Virginian #73, on a July 4th excursion.
Incidentally, they outlasted N&W's U25B fleet from the second generation which were all gone by January 1975. A testament that Fairbanks Morse built a pretty solid locomotive with these. Most made it to the standard 15 year life that carriers expected at the time and Southern Pacific's and much of N&W's fleet (Although retirements had started all the way back in 1966) kept ticking well into the 1970's.
Anyone know what went wrong with the preservation plans for N&W #173? It apparently was promised to Roanoke but got cut down to a slug instead through some type of miscommunication. But I've never seen any details on just what went wrong.
At least CPR saved one.
Interesting question.
For me, as I've learned more about the history of prototype locomotives, my "favorite" locomotive has changed. Perhaps I'm just a cold hearted civil engineer type...
Don't get me wrong, I absolutely love the aesthetics of Alco PA's, Alco Centuries, and selected large steam power like the B&LE 2-10-4's and Western Pacific Challengers.
Having read extensive coverage from multiple sources regarding the failure of certain manufacturers' locomotives in real world, demanding Class 1 mainline service has caused me to completely re-think even the locomotives that I allow to appear on my HO train layout. I don't want to be reminded of the commercial sales and maintenance failures of some, so I simply won't buy models of them anymore (and cleared out all the models I previously owned).
I'm not advocating that approach for others, only saying it is what I did on my personal model railroad.
I just recently read that in actual testing, the EMD FT was 40% more fuel efficient than the very best steam power in existence at that time--and in the actual drawbar tests on Tehachapi Loop, the FT Demonstrator flat out blew away the best steam power available for comparison (Santa Fe's 2-10-4 and SP's cab forward 4-8-8-2). The FT out-classed them in tonnage hauled and the speed at which the train got over that section of railroad. It was not even close--the FT beat the cab forward's tonnage by about 33% while also increasing the speed (and beat the 2-10-4 by even more margin). Of course, the F-7's were significantly better than the FT's.
Because even model steam power requires more special care and feeding, I've chosen to leave it to the history books, and for diesels, I simply prefer EMD's now (but am not a 1990's or later guy otherwise might have GE's).
I love the aesthetics of E and F units and SD40/SD40-2's. They also were great engines for their time, and that's also why I own or would own (I model passenger era prior to 1971) models of them.
N&W had two distinct fleets of Train Masters, both surviving into the early 1970's. The ex-VGN fleet remained in mine run and coal hauling on their home rails. The ex-WAB fleet was repowered with 251 engines while still owned by Wabash and lasted as hump pushers at Bellevue.
Just to confuse the issue, two or three of the ex-VGN units were renumbered into the 3590 series (ex-Wabash) to cover the equipment trusts of ex-Wabash units that had been retired and scrapped.
I've searched, but can't find a retirement date, they survived on the N&W at least until 1973.
http://rrpicturearchives.net/showPicture.aspx?id=443359
Can anyone find the date?
That's interesting, I didn't know any TM's were re-powered. Do you know how successful the repowerings were? Typically it's a summertime thing, "Summertime they work, OK, summertime they don't!"
Okay, I've found some!
Before: http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/showPicture.aspx?id=3075767
After :http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/showPicture.aspx?id=2419413
A good way to keep beautiful FMs around after most had been retired, they don't look too bad when repowered.
Wabash's H-24-66s were repowered with 16-251Bs by ALCO in 1964. I'll try to find pictures later.
Firelock76the OP engines were a great success when used in stationary power plants and in the submarines that had them during World War Two, but the fact is they couldn't stand up to the rough railroad environment.
When the OP engine was used in those capacities they were secured quite firmly and very stable, They also ran at a more consistent RPM. The problem with the smooth running engine when used in a rail locomotive was the unstable bumpy enviroment and a constant change in speeds and demands on the engine. FM worked out some of these problems but by that time it had been too late. The PRR's TM's really became a maintenance headache only after the engines had aged.
Overmod mentioned that the engine's demise in railroading was political, this I found to be somewhat true, the company who owned rights to the engine where skeptical of railway use and I believe part of the reason was its unusal height and a concern about modifications required to the locomotive design. Even after production modifications were made to rid the unit of some problems, one the PRR encountered was proper ventilation of the battery compartment, it was altered to reduce fires and smelly fumes.
But getting back to the original post...modelers who prefer the early diesel era like the multitude of available units and the variety of looks, and model companies respond to that. The TM (H66) was intimidating, I seen them run on the PRR as pushers from Johnstown to Gallitzen, they were quite impressive as such would also be on your train layout. On my layout I try to find variety by looking for company "Demo" units, that way I tell people my railroad is experimenting with a new locomotive. But I model the PRR and they had just about everything, railroad version of Cars.com As for the TM...Good choice!
Now, there's a generic FM OP engine, prime mover, and an FM locomotive discussion; I've BTDT in my career; been a Long Islander kid and, trainwatching, saw and Baby-Brownie photo-ed a TM demo run westbound at Mineola among the 5-axle 500 and 600 HP-per-driving axle C-Liners.
Been there. Done that, when I hired out on SP's Coast Div in 1960 where FM 1200 hp switchers roamed from Guadalupe and San Luis Obispo, Salinas, Watsonville Jct and from San Jose to the SF Bay and where the 4800's, SP's TM's, which included 2 of the demo engines, spent most of their duty hours in (SP term) commute service 'tween SF and SJ), but at night four or or more would run light to and bring back from Wat. Jct, the Logan Rock train and one of the "Perishable" trains from the Salinas Valley.
Bay Shore (yard- "Engine") Shops maintained the FM's. Early 60's, the OP was OK among us....well yes, they were gassey....steam crews knew that some situations caused noxious, in the cab, aromatic irritating inhalations.
The engine is primo metal when it's under load...even heavy load. The engine, the OP, never gave me a mechanical problem, nor one that was life-threatening as Sp 6413 did on the GGM train a morning in 1961....SP 6413 was an F7.
"Coulda' blown up,"
While walking thru'the locomotives an area shrilly impressed me; I told the engr and RH foreman that some thing is wrong at that place on the 567 engine of the F7A.
The rest of he story....Paul.....some place in Indiana
Hi Overmod!
Well, it's not ME that Fairbanks-Morse's engineers would have the arguments with, it would have been the guys on the various railroads tasked with the job of keeping those opposed-piston engines alive! Considering most railroad maintanance is "get 'em in, get 'em fixed, get 'em out!" you can imagine the hassles involved in pulling the whole upper crankshaft assembly wouldn't have endeared the engine to the mechanics.
Certainly, the OP engines were a great success when used in stationary power plants and in the submarines that had them during World War Two, but the fact is they couldn't stand up to the rough railroad environment. Engine crews weren't that crazy about them either, at least when they were run long-hood forward, The FM's were fumey engines, and a lot of crews got sick when they ran them long-hood forward. Short-hood forward, no problems, which is why I suspect most of the photos I see of the CNJ's FM's show them being run that way.
At any rate, I believe there were only 168 Trainmasters sold to various 'roads. Compared to the thousands of Geeps sold that should tell us something.
Hey Mntrain, NOW see what you started?
My point being when people ask about what prototype locomotives they like the answer given are what some of us like to model. I would love having a real baldwin or FM in my backyard. But probably not if I was running a short line because of maintenance. However there are exceptions ( SMS Baldwins ect...)
Firelock76However, it WAS a maintanance headache, if not a nightmare, to the 'roads that bought it. That opposed-piston engine, to make a long story short, just wasn't suitable for railroad use.
Van Stonehocker, one of the FM engineers involved in the design, would vehemently disagree with you.
There were certainly some points in the OP design that were 'more difficult' for maintenance, for example having to pull the upper crankshaft assembly to do work on the chambers or upper pistons. But there were countervailing advantages...
Most of the 'reason' for the absence of FM OP engines from modern practice is political, not technical: the same company owns rights to the 251 family and to the OP, and they have specifically forbidden use of the OP engine design in railway traction. (Which, considering the engine in the Chinese Dong Feng, is shortsighted of them...)
For what it's worth, there is no difficulty in getting 8000+ reliable horsepower out of an OP engine that will fit into a chassis the length of an SD70M-2 or ES44. Not saying there's a practical use for that single-unit horsepower... just that it could be done. (And without a fog of blue smoke after extended idling, either...!)
F-Ms, Baldwins, and Limas were good looking locomotives, but for various reasons were never very successful. But with F-Ms, the large long hood allows enough room to easily drop in a 16-567. Keep the pretty exterior, put in a reliable interior, and, for the most part, you'll do fine, although smashing together parts from different builders could cause issues.
Well, this really belongs on the "Model Railroading" Forum, but hey, we're all friendly here and love to chat, so why not?
I can understand the appeal of the Trainmaster to modelers and others. It's brawny, if not fearsome, good looks appeal to a lot of people, myself included, and I'm a steam freak. It was also ahead of it's time having 2400 horsepower when most diesel units had 1500.
However, it WAS a maintanance headache, if not a nightmare, to the 'roads that bought it. That opposed-piston engine, to make a long story short, just wasn't suitable for railroad use.
Come back any time!
When modelers pick there favorite locomotives,we some times go off of looks.However many times it is the rarity of the locomotives .Example I just had to have the Atlas N scale train mastesr when they came out some years ago.I even added a freelance short line to fit them on my Milw 70s layout .I doubt however they were a favorite of the maintenance dept or crews.
In the real world, often rarity or oddball = hard to work on or reliability problems and dislike by the crews or maintenance personal.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.