Locomotives that were proposed, but never built.

5138 views
38 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    October 2014
  • 5 posts
Locomotives that were proposed, but never built.
Posted by ANDREW BOYD on Friday, October 16, 2020 8:22 PM

In recent times, one of my favorite things to think about regarding railroads has been proposed locomotives that were, for any number of reasons, never built. So what are some proposed but unbuilt locomotives you all have read or heard about?

So far, I can personally think of:

- N&W Y7 2-8-8-2

- ATSF Cab Forward 6-4-4-4

- Erie 2-10-4/2-6-6-4

- Monon 4-10-4

  • Member since
    September 2003
  • 14,761 posts
Posted by Overmod on Monday, October 19, 2020 4:33 PM

Lehigh Valley 4-4-6-4; NYC C1a 4-4-4-4

Baltimore & Ohio W-1 motor locomotive

PRR V1 turbine (several variants)

Anything with Franklin System type C poppet-valve gear, or double Belpaire...

We have a couple of very extensive threads on diesels catalogued but not built; it turns out there is technical data on the Ingalls Shipbuilding 2000hp single-unit passenger locomotive.

  • Member since
    April 2007
  • 3,359 posts
Posted by Convicted One on Monday, October 19, 2020 6:09 PM

ANDREW BOYD
So what are some proposed but unbuilt locomotives you all have read or heard about?

I don't believe that this Raymond Loewy design ever made it into production.

http://www.art.net/Lile/loewy/images/bureuloc.gif

I believe those are cylinders and driver rods along the side

  • Member since
    September 2002
  • From: ShelbyTwp., Michigan
  • 835 posts
Posted by SD60MAC9500 on Wednesday, October 21, 2020 8:20 PM
 

Convicted One

 

 
ANDREW BOYD
So what are some proposed but unbuilt locomotives you all have read or heard about?

 

I don't believe that this Raymond Loewy design ever made it into production.

http://www.art.net/Lile/loewy/images/bureuloc.gif

I believe those are cylinders and driver rods along the side

 

That loco in the link you posted almost looks like an early prototype of C&O's M-1 Class Steam Turbine

Chesapeake & Ohio's "M-1" Steam Turbine Locomotive

 
 
Rahhhhhhhhh!!!!
  • Member since
    January 2001
  • From: Atlanta
  • 11,751 posts
Posted by oltmannd on Thursday, October 22, 2020 8:57 AM

How about an EMD DDR, 6700 HP electric?  I have an EMD spec/proposal to the PRR dated December 1966 with the details....

Gen'l arrangment...  

https://photos.app.goo.gl/2f7AcDwXpwgxySp47

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/

  • Member since
    September 2003
  • 14,761 posts
Posted by Overmod on Thursday, October 22, 2020 9:00 AM

oltmannd
How about an EMD DDR, 6700 HP electric?  I have an EMD spec/proposal to the PRR dated December 1966 with the details....

You would dare cite such a thing and not provide details?  I protest!

Can you at least scan it and let us beg via PM for a copy?

  • Member since
    January 2001
  • From: Atlanta
  • 11,751 posts
Posted by oltmannd on Thursday, October 22, 2020 10:01 AM

Overmod

 

 
oltmannd
How about an EMD DDR, 6700 HP electric?  I have an EMD spec/proposal to the PRR dated December 1966 with the details....

 

You would dare cite such a thing and not provide details?  I protest!

 

Can you at least scan it and let us beg via PM for a copy?

 

How about this?  https://drive.google.com/file/d/1KewDcBGdzsTuWVOg2hCPURMiAaV5YwXH/view?usp=sharing

 

-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/

  • Member since
    September 2003
  • 14,761 posts
Posted by Overmod on Thursday, October 22, 2020 10:11 AM

oltmannd

Requires me to have a Google account (more specifically, access to the Google Drive service), and then requires me to 'request access' once I'm signed in.  I asked 'whoever reads the messages' on a request for access to contact you directly if you meant to give blanket permissions to forum folks.

This is particularly fun as my registered email for signin is different from that used for the Google Account ... don't ask, it's a history thing.  Remains to be seen what form 'approval' to the resource is granted ... and on what e-mail address it will appear.

Thanks already for the thoughtfulness in providing the material for access -- many more thanks when I get to read it!

EDIT:  Got the permission link.  Oddly the file, although I can read it perfectly well on a phone, will not load into iBooks.  

  • Member since
    April 2007
  • From: Palos Park, IL
  • 122 posts
Posted by bogie_engineer on Thursday, October 22, 2020 12:50 PM

oltmannd

How about an EMD DDR, 6700 HP electric?  I have an EMD spec/proposal to the PRR dated December 1966 with the details....

Gen'l arrangment...  https://photos.app.goo.gl/2f7AcDwXpwgx

Before my time at EMD, but I immediately recognized the handwriting of Frank Lapka, a terrific designer who retired about 1978 after 40 years at EMD. While working on a design project with him, he gave me a Pratt & Whitney pocket book on aircraft engine design (that I can't find at the moment) that he was given by Gene Kettering to aid him in a radial engine design he was doing as a "government job" in the 50's. The layouts exist in EMD's files so make that an "engine proposed but never built".

Dave

  • Member since
    July 2008
  • 1,651 posts
Posted by rdamon on Thursday, October 22, 2020 12:56 PM

Dave,

I have the same P&W pocketbook I got from my Stepfather years ago.  Amazing reference.

Thank you for sharing your knowledge!

Robert

  • Member since
    September 2003
  • 14,761 posts
Posted by Overmod on Thursday, October 22, 2020 4:06 PM

Have seen it, and it's fascinating.  If anyone wondered what an electric DD40 with double cabs might look like, nearly 90' long ... here it is.

Still more interesting is that it's rated only 100 more hp. than a diesel with the same trucks.  Is this traction-motor limited somehow?

 

  • Member since
    April 2007
  • From: Palos Park, IL
  • 122 posts
Posted by bogie_engineer on Thursday, October 22, 2020 6:48 PM

Overmod

Have seen it, and it's fascinating.  If anyone wondered what an electric DD40 with double cabs might look like, nearly 90' long ... here it is.

Still more interesting is that it's rated only 100 more hp. than a diesel with the same trucks.  Is this traction-motor limited somehow?

Perhaps. The GP40 from that time period handled only 750 HP/motor. The GM6C and GF6C were rated at 1,000HP per motor but they were 10+ year later designs with E88 traction motors with the same stator size as the D77 but better insulation and cooling.

  • Member since
    January 2019
  • 811 posts
Posted by Erik_Mag on Thursday, October 22, 2020 10:54 PM

bogie_engineer

While working on a design project with him, he gave me a Pratt & Whitney pocket book on aircraft engine design (that I can't find at the moment) that he was given by Gene Kettering to aid him in a radial engine design he was doing as a "government job" in the 50's. The layouts exist in EMD's files so make that an "engine proposed but never built".

I wonder if this had anything to do with the "pancake engine" used on some of the ca 1950 USN submarines. An example was the Albacore.

  • Member since
    May 2011
  • 104 posts
Posted by IA and eastern on Friday, October 23, 2020 9:54 AM

For those that do not have access to Goggle can you give some ideal what the DDR looked like. Gary

  • Member since
    September 2003
  • 14,761 posts
Posted by Overmod on Friday, October 23, 2020 10:21 AM

IA and eastern
For those that do not have access to Google can you give some ideal what the DDR looked like.

There are side and end elevation drawings in the last pages of Don's PDF that show the arrangement very well.  I'd have to leave it to Don to scan the pages (and stitch the drawing together!) and host it to be seen here.  

The locomotive does not have the UP DD full-width cabs, as I had first thought; there are standard cabs with short hoods, but the cabs appear abbreviated compared to contemporary SD45.  There are 'road pilots' without footboards.  Interestingly the horns are located between the upper number boards, with provision 'to change diaphragms from inside the cab' -- I doubt this would have been tolerable too long in service!  Headlights are where they probably should be, in the low short hood where there would be little glare.

Structure between the cabs is narrow hood, probably using typical EMD long-hood components where practical.  Pans are Faiveley, in recesses just behind the cab.  As noted this is a very long locomotive, over 88' over pulling faces; if you were modeling one you might start with a DD40 frame and trucks and use a couple of SD45 shells for most of the superstructure.

These were built almost like two separate four-axle electric locomotives on a common frame; only the primaries of the HV transformers are intertied to permit one pantograph to supply both main transformers.  Interestingly all the specs mention a peak design value of 11kV rather than 12.5.  All four motors in each truck were permanently connected in parallel, as expected.  Interestingly there is no attempt at regenerative braking at all; the dynamic is dissipated in centrally-located resistance grids.

  • Member since
    March 2016
  • From: Burbank IL (near Clearing)
  • 12,228 posts
Posted by CSSHEGEWISCH on Friday, October 23, 2020 1:52 PM

I am assuming that this proposal was for a rectifier locomotive which precluded regenerative braking since the electronics of the time could not convert DC back into AC.

The daily commute is part of everyday life but I get two rides a day out of it. Paul
  • Member since
    September 2003
  • 14,761 posts
Posted by Overmod on Friday, October 23, 2020 3:08 PM

CSSHEGEWISCH
I am assuming that this proposal was for a rectifier locomotive which precluded regenerative braking since the electronics of the time could not convert DC back into AC.

The locomotive was designed, as so many proposed at the time were, to use AC to supply DC motors common to those used in diesel-electrics.   You are correct that there was no provision to connect the DC motors to anything that could transvert the DC back to AC at correct frequency and synchronization to be used for regenerative braking.  Interestingly, EMD not only specifically mentions that the TMs are compatible with existing GP and SD locomotives, but that an 8-notch control is effectively synthesized to regulate the various taps and thyristor firing -- to afford true MU compatibility with contemporary diesel-electrics.  EMD offered an extra-cost option to give compatibility with the 29-notch system on the E44s; it might be interesting to see if this were an optional control in parallel with the 8-notch equipment or a full replacement ... could a DDR have been designed to 'bridge' between MUed diesels and E44s?

  • Member since
    January 2019
  • 811 posts
Posted by Erik_Mag on Friday, October 23, 2020 10:38 PM

If the locomotive would have had thyristor control, it would not have been completely out of the question to incorporate regeneraive braking. This would have been a matter of setting up an additional set of thyristors oriented in the opposite direction from the propulsive thyristors and coming up with a control system for firing the additional thyristors. In both the propulsion and braking cases, commutation of the thyristors would have been handled by the AC from the catenary.

One reason for not doing this is that the regenerated current waveform would have been more or less a square wave which could lead to a distorted voltage waveform. I've seen block diagrams for some European electric locomotives with a single phase converter between the catenary nad the locomotives DC rails that allow power transfer both ways.

  • Member since
    December 2017
  • From: I've been everywhere, man
  • 3,037 posts
Posted by SD70Dude on Friday, October 23, 2020 11:30 PM

I see several notes about a boiler and water & fuel tanks on those DDR drawings, so it seems the design was intended to be capable of operating in passenger service.

Batteries too, would they have just been for operating auxiliaries or was the thing to have been capable of moving itself for short distances on non-electrified track?

Greetings from Alberta

-an Articulate Malcontent

  • Member since
    September 2003
  • 14,761 posts
Posted by Overmod on Saturday, October 24, 2020 10:49 AM

SD70Dude
I see several notes about a boiler and water & fuel tanks on those DDR drawings, so it seems the design was intended to be capable of operating in passenger service.

This was the heyday of the SDP replacements for E units, so it is little surprise that EMD might pitch the DDR as a replacement for at least the older of the passenger electrics.  As I recall the Centennials were allowed 80mph on Union Pacific, which was until 1967 (a year later than this proposal) the maximum allowed speed of the GG1s -- so yes, this might have been attractive as an option for some PRR passenger services or even the heavier commuter trains.

The battery is 64V 168ah, and even though the specification says the battery is for 'control and lighting' (there is a 74V rectified tap from #1 transformer for running power for these that may or may not go 'through' the cells) a battery that size would not move a locomotive with 600V traction motors very far.  That is not to say it was impossible; the Amtrak P42 has explicit connections to allow it to be hostled on battery power.

  • Member since
    December 2017
  • From: I've been everywhere, man
  • 3,037 posts
Posted by SD70Dude on Saturday, October 24, 2020 12:35 PM

In that case, the battery would probably only be useful for moving the locomotive around in a shop.  

Diesel-electrics can do this too, this feature is called the "spotter circuit" or "jog mode".  It uses the battery to power a single traction motor.

Greetings from Alberta

-an Articulate Malcontent

  • Member since
    September 2002
  • From: ShelbyTwp., Michigan
  • 835 posts
Posted by SD60MAC9500 on Saturday, October 24, 2020 3:46 PM
 

oltmannd

How about an EMD DDR, 6700 HP electric?  I have an EMD spec/proposal to the PRR dated December 1966 with the details....

Gen'l arrangment...  

https://photos.app.goo.gl/2f7AcDwXpwgxySp47

Geez this thing looks incredibly heavy! Per Mr Goding the traction motors were limted to 750 HP. Why not just propose an electric version of the SD45? 4500HP in a Co-Co would that not suffice?

 
Rahhhhhhhhh!!!!
  • Member since
    January 2001
  • From: Atlanta
  • 11,751 posts
Posted by oltmannd on Saturday, October 24, 2020 4:52 PM

In 1966, you are pitching these machines against GE's E44a.  You have to have more HP and TE to be able to justify these over the known quantity.  

-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/

  • Member since
    January 2001
  • From: Atlanta
  • 11,751 posts
Posted by oltmannd on Saturday, October 24, 2020 4:54 PM

I fished the spec out of the trash when Conrail's Equipment Engineering was moving out of 30th St. Station circa 1980.  I'm sure there were other copies that survived.  A whole lot of historical stuff was carted away by RR Museum of PA.

-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/

  • Member since
    April 2007
  • From: Palos Park, IL
  • 122 posts
Posted by bogie_engineer on Saturday, October 24, 2020 8:39 PM

Erik_Mag

I wonder if this had anything to do with the "pancake engine" used on some of the ca 1950 USN submarines. An example was the Albacore.

 

 
What he told me was it was to be an airplane engine given Kettering's interest in aviation but I don't remember any other details.
  • Member since
    January 2002
  • 4,159 posts
Posted by M636C on Tuesday, November 3, 2020 3:53 AM

bogie_engineer

 

 
Erik_Mag

I wonder if this had anything to do with the "pancake engine" used on some of the ca 1950 USN submarines. An example was the Albacore.

 

 

 
What he told me was it was to be an airplane engine given Kettering's interest in aviation but I don't remember any other details.
 

 

While not really a radial, the Pancake engine used several features of radial aero engine design...

https://oldmachinepress.com/2014/08/17/general-motors-electro-motive-16-184-diesel-engine/

Peter

  • Member since
    January 2009
  • From: Poulsbo, WA
  • 425 posts
Posted by creepycrank on Tuesday, November 3, 2020 6:21 AM

The problem of Navy MIL spec. oil would come up again with the high shock diesel generators. The problem was the possible use of a zinc base additive that would corrode the silver plated piston insert bearings in the piston. EMD developed a bearing that had no silver that was margenal with tirbo engines but just fine for blower engines and about $100 cheaper. Later on EMD convinced the navy to switch to the EB power assemblies with the trick rocking pin insert bering without going through the enire shock test.

Revision 1: Adds this new piece Revision 2: Improves it Revision 3: Makes it just right Revision 4: Removes it.
  • Member since
    September 2003
  • 14,761 posts
Posted by Overmod on Tuesday, November 3, 2020 7:26 AM

The principal issue with the 338s as I understood it was not so much ZDDP as it was the different drive arrangement compared with the 184/184A.  The earlier pancake used a right-angle drive at the bottom, which was not a leak problem.  The 338 had a generator there, which was a big-time bad idea, additives or not.

Tell them more about the EB assemblies.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Member since
    January 2009
  • From: Poulsbo, WA
  • 425 posts
Posted by creepycrank on Tuesday, November 3, 2020 8:37 AM

creepycrank

The problem of Navy MIL spec. oil would come up again with the high shock diesel generators. The problem was the possible use of a zinc base additive that would corrode the silver plated piston insert bearings in the piston. EMD developed a bearing that had no silver that was margenal with tirbo engines but just fine for blower engines and about $100 cheaper. Later on EMD convinced the navy to switch to the EB power assemblies with the trick rocking pin insert bering without going through the enire shock test.

 

In the late 70,s, EMD was in a race with GE, Alco and anybody else to improve fuel efficiency. This resulted in several model changes requireing different model identities as follows:

1. 645E  14.5:1 CR, 2150 hp @ 900 rpm

2. 645EB 14.5:1CR, 2250 hp @ 900 rpm

3. 645EC 16:1  CR, 2250 hp @ 900 rpm

4. 645F    16:1 CR, 2500 hp @ 900 rpm

The rocking pin insert bearing my have been introduced at the same time as 16:1 comression ratio.

 

 

Revision 1: Adds this new piece Revision 2: Improves it Revision 3: Makes it just right Revision 4: Removes it.
  • Member since
    September 2003
  • 14,761 posts
Posted by Overmod on Tuesday, November 3, 2020 11:52 AM

creepycrank
The rocking pin insert bearing my have been introduced at the same time as 16:1 compression ratio.

That was my understanding, on the 645FB.

If I understand the concept correctly, the piston pin doesn't actually 'rock', it is ground with multiple centers so it sweeps oil across the little-end bearing shell  each time the rod articulates.  I think it's the antithesis of a floating wristpin in that it's physically bolted to its connecting rod ... in fact on at least some 710s those are 5/16" bolts.

Join our Community!

Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.

Search the Community

Newsletter Sign-Up

By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy