Leo_Ames No, I read something years ago by Wally Abby that explained the original 4 unit demos was envisioned by EMD as a pair of two-unit locomotives (i.e., a drawbar connecting each A unit with their respective B unit mate and a regular coupler connection between the B units). So it doesn't surprise me to read that these were split up during demonstration duties into AB sets.
No, I read something years ago by Wally Abby that explained the original 4 unit demos was envisioned by EMD as a pair of two-unit locomotives (i.e., a drawbar connecting each A unit with their respective B unit mate and a regular coupler connection between the B units).
So it doesn't surprise me to read that these were split up during demonstration duties into AB sets.
The Wally Abbey FT email originally appeared on the Santa Fe Listserve on March 5, 2001. It is preserved on Don Strack's Utah Rails page for us to read again. See: https://utahrails.net/loconotes/emc-ft.php
Were not the original prototype FT's from EMD; released as a single unit? I have always thought that originally, they were permanently coupled with drawbars between each unit ?
It was primarily due to issues with various iterations of 'Full crew' laws, and personnel required on 'each' unit/engine/loco; due to union contracts?
It was only after the original prototype had fulfilled its obligations to its 'new power trials, that the four units were re-equipped with functionaing couplers.
Leo_AmesThis got me to wondering about the exact mileage for the FT prototypes. Was it 83,000 per unit for a total of ~332,000 miles if we counted each unit as a separate locomotive? Or was it a far less impressive 83,000 miles spread across 4 units? I assume the former given the thinking of the day.
I believe the mileage would be counted for 'single locomotives' in that era before contracted wage and fireman issues for MU locomotives had been resolved. The issue is how much of the running was done with the demonstrator consist 'divided' into 2700hp two-unit locomotives to show appropriate scale. If this is not known it could probably at least be approximated by looking at the overall schedule and routing (which has a few uncertainties, but nothing I remember as critical) and knowledge of whether the whole or half locomotives were being operated on particular days.
Note that the likely operation of trains with the demonstrators will be different. In the prewar FT demo, the trains would have been made up and dispatched relative to steam-era operations, and this would likely have a significant impact (cf. the numbers for Niagara performance) on the number of physical route-miles per month the consist(s) could coherently serve. It might have been interesting for EMD to spend a sustained block of time on, say, running secondary or M&E trains on NYC between Harmon and Chicago to show the various effects of short-turnaround availability or functional fuel efficiency, but that was not the 'first best purpose' of the demo tour.
If the 83,000 miles are 'tour miles' and not 'divided-consist miles', the 645 testing may reflect how many miles were run by consists as if run by a single unit; I suspect much of the testing would have been with units in MU, but with several consists made up of the 11 separate units running in different areas at different times. Again only specific reference to EMD records could establish or disprove this 'for sure'; while it would be attractive marketing to tout that 'million-mile' figure, and it's relevant in some contexts to tot it up on an all-prime-movers basis for separate high-horsepower units, I'd suspect purchasing departments would be running their internal numbers to figure out what fleets of the locomotives could produce for them.
I was reading how EMD's test/demo units powered by their then new 645 had "eclipsed" the famous 83,000 mile/11 month tour of EMC's 4-unit FT prototype, by breaking the million mile mark in less than a year of test runs.
This got me to wondering about the exact mileage for the FT prototypes. Was it 83,000 per unit for a total of ~332,000 miles if we counted each unit as a separate locomotive? Or was it a far less impressive 83,000 miles spread across 4 units? I assume the former given the thinking of the day.
The mid-1960's EMD tour was a collective total with 11 different locomotives contributing. Assuming the FT total was a collective total of 332,000 miles, it makes the 40 series total a tad bit less impressive when one realizes just to break a million miles, each unit on average only had to contribute less than 8,000 more miles than the FT prototypes of 25 years earlier had done.
In 1940, all Worcester, MA, passenger and freight trains, on all three railroads, NYNH&H, B&A/NYC,and B&M, were steam with one exception. The exception was the Worcester - Winchendon B&M doodlebug. From an eight-year-old's memory. Someone can check the Official Guide.
SSW9389 Nine 1940 photos by Al Arnold of #103 in Worcester, Massachusetts can be found here: http://www.nerailroadphotos.com/HistoricRailroadPhotosbyAlArno/1940-Al-Arnold-Photos/i-s3t4K8F Worcester isn't on either of the FT maps.
Nine 1940 photos by Al Arnold of #103 in Worcester, Massachusetts can be found here: http://www.nerailroadphotos.com/HistoricRailroadPhotosbyAlArno/1940-Al-Arnold-Photos/i-s3t4K8F Worcester isn't on either of the FT maps.
Mudchicken the Southern had all five types of FT units as described in my previous post. The Southern FS units were built with a draft gear on the front of the A units, a draft gear on the back of the B units, and Santa Fe couplers linking the back of the A unit to the front of the B units. Southern's FS units were in the 4100s and 4300s.
mudchicken Did Southern's twenty some odd FT-B's get retrofitted with draft gear then? There are several of those FT-B's (Virginia & Kentucky have at least one each) out there preserved and not attached to an A unit. (4300 Class)
Did Southern's twenty some odd FT-B's get retrofitted with draft gear then? There are several of those FT-B's (Virginia & Kentucky have at least one each) out there preserved and not attached to an A unit. (4300 Class)
According to EMD Field Service News Volume II No. 7 dated July 15, 1947 there were five types of what we now call the "FT". These five types were the FT-A, FT-B, FT-SB, FS-A, and FS-B.
The FT-A was a cab unit that was linked to a booster with a drawbar. It had a draft gear and coupler in the front.
The FT-B was the booster unit that was linked to an FT-A unit with a drawbar. It had a standard draft gear and coupler in the back.
The FT-SB was a short booster unit. It was linked to other FT units with drawbars. There was no draft gear or coupler.
The FS-A unit was a cab unit with a draft gear and coupler in the front and a Santa Fe coupler without draft gear at the back.
The FS-B unit was a booster unit with a Santa Fe coupler in the front and a draft gear and coupler in the back. The FS-B booster units as-built had the 5th porthole and hostler control.
(I've put all this EMD information on the Wikipedia FT Talk page so you can find it again.)
A four unit set of FT units is 193' long. A four unit set of FS units is 194' 4" long. There is an extra 8" length between the FS-A and the FS-B units because couplers were used instead of drawbars.
Ed in Kentucky
Bill Metzger explained why the 2014 map was changed from the 1960 map in the Observation Tower Blog: http://cs.trains.com/trn/b/observation-tower/archive/2014/10/06/when-and-where-did-the-diesel-that-did-it-actually-do-it.aspx
SSW9389 There are several discrepancies between the EMC 103 map used in the February 1960 issue and the November 2014 issue. The 2014 map shows 22 railroads, while the 1960 map shows 20 railroads. The differences are the PRR and SP are added to the 2014 map. The 2014 map shows routes in 31 states, while the 1960 map correctly shows all 35 states. The routes to Portland, ME and White River Jct, VT are missing in the 2014 map. As are the Southern Railway routes to Atlanta and Birmingham missing from the 2014 map. The 2014 map shows the M&SL route from Mason City, IA to Peoria, IL. And the PRR trackage from Peoria to Valparaiso, IN. The 1960 map doesn't show the total M&SL route or any PRR trackage. It appears that neither map is correct in entirety. And I note that the 103 operated on 47 miles of the Cotton Belt while it was demonstrating for the Missouri Pacific between Dupo, IL and Texarkana. Ed in Kentucky
There are several discrepancies between the EMC 103 map used in the February 1960 issue and the November 2014 issue. The 2014 map shows 22 railroads, while the 1960 map shows 20 railroads. The differences are the PRR and SP are added to the 2014 map. The 2014 map shows routes in 31 states, while the 1960 map correctly shows all 35 states. The routes to Portland, ME and White River Jct, VT are missing in the 2014 map. As are the Southern Railway routes to Atlanta and Birmingham missing from the 2014 map. The 2014 map shows the M&SL route from Mason City, IA to Peoria, IL. And the PRR trackage from Peoria to Valparaiso, IN. The 1960 map doesn't show the total M&SL route or any PRR trackage. It appears that neither map is correct in entirety.
And I note that the 103 operated on 47 miles of the Cotton Belt while it was demonstrating for the Missouri Pacific between Dupo, IL and Texarkana.
SSW9389 Mudchicken the Southern had both FT and FS units. An FS is an FT that doesn't use a drawbar to connect to another unit. The Southern FS B units were those with the 5th porthole ala the Santa Fe Booster units. I'm looking for my notes I took on these and will post again soon. Later in the January 1, 1959 EMD product data cards the FS units are called FTS by EMD. It's confusing so we railfans just use the term FT. mudchicken Did Southern's twenty some odd FT-B's get retrofitted with draft gear then? There are several of those FT-B's (Virginia & Kentucky have at least one each) out there preserved and not attached to an A unit. (4300 Class)
Mudchicken the Southern had both FT and FS units. An FS is an FT that doesn't use a drawbar to connect to another unit. The Southern FS B units were those with the 5th porthole ala the Santa Fe Booster units. I'm looking for my notes I took on these and will post again soon. Later in the January 1, 1959 EMD product data cards the FS units are called FTS by EMD. It's confusing so we railfans just use the term FT.
While Preston Cook doesn't support this view, I believe FT stands for "Fourteen Hundred Horsepower Twin Unit" and FS stands for Fourteen Hundred Horsepower Single Unit". I'm told that the early references to Santa Fe units (all of which had couplers and many of which were delivered as A+B+B+B sets) were to FS. Sadly EMD internal documents are not consistent in later periods when the origin of the model codes was forgotten. Clearly "T" had been taken for "Twelve Hundred" as in Rock Island's TA and couldn't be used for "Thirteen Hundred" even if that was wanted. But if "F" in FT did not stand for horsepower, it would have been the first road unit not to use the horsepower for the code.
As to draft gear, I thought that the Santa Fe units had effectively rigid couplers between A and B units, but had normal draft gear at the "long" end of the B unit. If the original drawbar was rigid (as I'm told) having couplers would introduce a very small amount of slack not present with the drawbar. Most drawbar coupled freight cars have normal draft gears applied each end of the drawbar and I think FTs would have needed at least a compact draft gear at the coupled end of each unit.
The FT was originally viewed as a big E unit with a drawbar holding it together, but by the time the F2 appeared the units were completely independent vehicles.
M636C
Leo_Ames I can check, but I had the page opened to it when I typed that to get the name right. Would be pretty silly if it was my mistake, but I'll check. I'm hoping it wasn't me that made the error. :) Edit: Yep, it was me. Watched too many classic movies lately, perhaps...
I can check, but I had the page opened to it when I typed that to get the name right. Would be pretty silly if it was my mistake, but I'll check.
I'm hoping it wasn't me that made the error. :)
Edit: Yep, it was me. Watched too many classic movies lately, perhaps...
Nobody would mistake Louis B Mayer for a professor of English in real life....
Specifically a typing error....
The Missouri Pacific had 47 miles of trackage rights over the Cotton Belt between Illmo, MO and Dexter Jct. MO. This was commonly referred to as the joint track. This is the Cotton Belt trackage that the EMC FT #103 operated over in the Summer of 1940. Cotton Belt mileage would be between stations I 3 and I 50.
Cotton Belt MP104SSW9389 located at MP104 I am closely watching your comments BSM/ABSM/Colton Block PFE bring back memories. Am confused about the comment EMC 103 traveling 47 miles on Cotton Belt (Dupo to Texarkana territory). Oh by the way I do fondly remember the Dupo PA's off lining the Cotton Belt here at Paragould to get onto their home track.......47 miles, where exactly? Thanks Enjoy your postings
M636COn the subject of accuracy, you do mean Louis A. Marre, don't you....
Don't confuse him with Louis B. Mayer!
Leo_Ames Did some additional digging and it looks like this old roster I'm looking at that was done by Louis B. Marre isn't quite accurate for the 52. It suggests that the EA had been traded in for the E6 with no mention of it actually having been sold off. Easy assumption to get caught in, with the E6 sharing the EA's number and the early retirement.
Did some additional digging and it looks like this old roster I'm looking at that was done by Louis B. Marre isn't quite accurate for the 52.
It suggests that the EA had been traded in for the E6 with no mention of it actually having been sold off. Easy assumption to get caught in, with the E6 sharing the EA's number and the early retirement.
On the subject of accuracy, you do mean Louis A. Marre, don't you....
But I agree that first 52 became Alton 100A.
The October 2014 Trains has most of the route of EMC #103. You have to look back at the February 1960 edition of the map to put the story together. And there are differences between the two maps and no explanations why.
NP Eddie The latest "Trains" has the route of EMD 103. Ed Burns Happily retired NP-BN-BNSF from Minneapolis, MN
The latest "Trains" has the route of EMD 103.
Ed Burns
Happily retired NP-BN-BNSF from Minneapolis, MN
This picture in particular would seem to confirm the previous post that there were in fact two #52's rather than the E6 having been built using the EA as a trade-in.
http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/showPicture.aspx?id=1546438
The new E6 that carried that number however was wrecked and scrapped in 1956 without having had the internal upgrading done that her sisters did, per this source.
The information missing from that roster data is that when "B&O" EA 52 was rebuilt by EMD it was no longer a B&O locomotive because, as I indicated in my prior post, it had been transferred to The Alton. After The Alton was absorbed by GM&O, the EA became GM&O 100A. It was later rebuilt to E8 specifications and retained that number. In other words, B&O had two A units numbered 52, although not at the same time. The first was the EA that was transferred to The Alton. The second was an E6 that was acquired as a replacement for the transferred EA and that was never rebuilt.
The roster data I have shows that the #52 was an E6 with builder's number 1094, outshopped in October 1940 after about 2/3's of their E6 fleet had already been delivered.
The original EA with that number was wrecked and usable parts were recycled by EMD to construct a replacement E6. That's also why B&O never rostered an E8A with that number, despite the other EA trade-ins maintaining their original numbers.
B&O's surviving E6 fleet was upgraded to E8 standards in the mid 1950's and didn't remain in original condition through to retirement. The #52 was wrecked again though prior to her chance and thus wasn't rebuilt internally like her sisters nor was it sent back to La Grange to again be "rebuilt" into what basically amounted to a brand new E unit.
If more evidence is necessary to show that she wasn't ever rebuilt as an E8Am and thus was no longer an EA like her sisters, note that she was slated to be renumbered #1407 before her untimely demise. That would've put her directly ahead of her E6 sisters on B&O's roster, making her the lowest numbered E unit in the fleet.
She was not due to be renumbered with the E8Am's that received the 1433-1437 slot during B&O's big renumbering program during the late stages of steam on the system, which would've been the logical spot for her had she stayed an EA and been traded in to EMD in 1953 to be rebuilt as an E8 in a new carbody like the rest of the EA fleet was.
B&O's first 52 was an EA-EB consist, the A unit of which I recall having been transferred to the Alton to operate with boxcab 50, which B&O had previously transferred. B&O's second 52 was an E6 A unit (which for awhile was distinguishable from the other E units because it had a hooded headlight). It initially operated with the EB from the original 52 consist. I also hadn't heard that any of the E6s were rebuilt internally.
Leo_Ames B&O's E6 fleet, minus the #52 that was scrapped, were rebuilt to E8 standards internally in the mid 1950's and carried a 2,250hp rating when they were retired in 1968 after becoming surplus due to declining passenger traffic.
B&O's E6 fleet, minus the #52 that was scrapped, were rebuilt to E8 standards internally in the mid 1950's and carried a 2,250hp rating when they were retired in 1968 after becoming surplus due to declining passenger traffic.
52 was an EA as were all those that were upgraded and defined as E8m's
E6's remained E6's to the scrap yard.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Wizlish BaltACD Wizlish M636C Is this also true of the B&O E8m design that kept the E6 slant nose? B&O's E-8m's had a E-8 carbody, not the E-6 slant nose. I was fooled by the Farr grilles on the rebuild into thinking this was E8m too: Did this locomotive remain 'ordinary' E6 mechanically and electrically?
BaltACD Wizlish M636C Is this also true of the B&O E8m design that kept the E6 slant nose? B&O's E-8m's had a E-8 carbody, not the E-6 slant nose.
Wizlish M636C Is this also true of the B&O E8m design that kept the E6 slant nose?
Is this also true of the B&O E8m design that kept the E6 slant nose?
B&O's E-8m's had a E-8 carbody, not the E-6 slant nose.
I was fooled by the Farr grilles on the rebuild into thinking this was E8m too:
Did this locomotive remain 'ordinary' E6 mechanically and electrically?
To my knowledge E-6's remained E-6's during their lifetime, however, internal modifications may have been made. B&O applied the stainless steel grill work to a number of engines, both freight and passenger during their periods of major shop time.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.