I worked for companies cut every corner they could. Some midwestern railroads had branches that had triweekly service 9 months of the year with something like SW1 with maybe 5 cars but in the fall ALCO RSD5s and Baldwin roadswitchers would haul 30 to 50 cars a day on a 5 days a week.Gary
Most branches with 10 MPH speed limits generally had triweekly or less frequent service and were a few steps away from abandonment. A sizable industry operation with trackage more elaborate than one or two spurs will have to spend some money on maintenance.
Wonder of wonders these industry railroads ran for years with no derailments but some class 1 railroads had branches that were that bad with very little trouble because the speed limit was 10 mph. Gary
Sounds like something that the mudchicken has mentioned repeatedly. The industry operation is going to have to spend some bucks on track maintenance and upkeep or they might wind up with derailments of standing cars.
IA and eastern I worked around industry railroads that used used rail and used ties on a gravel bed. One of these railroads borrowed a geep from a major railroad that derailed. The major railroad had to bring mobile crane to rerail the locomotive. It was decided to only use small locomotives.Gary
I worked around industry railroads that used used rail and used ties on a gravel bed. One of these railroads borrowed a geep from a major railroad that derailed. The major railroad had to bring mobile crane to rerail the locomotive. It was decided to only use small locomotives.Gary
A smaller engine would only be a matter of fuel economy or marginal weight reduction, and if either of those is a concern I think re-engining with something other than a GM locomotive two-stroke would be a wise idea.
Ironically, the G6B resulted from the Victorian Railways trying a smaller four stroke engine. This was the Mercedes Benz MB 820 b, a V-12 of 650HP, installed in a locally built locomotive of Krupp design with a rod coupled 0-6-0 wheel arrangement. Unfortunately the MB 820 b suffered from cavitation in the water jackets but the unfamiliarity of the whole concept made the "W class" unpopular from the start and production stopped half way through the order.
https://www.victorianrailways.net/motive%20power/wdie/wdie.html
As a result of this episode, any fuel consumption penalty with the 6-567C was accepted without question. In cidentally, alone amongst 567C engines in Australia, the 6-567C developed its 600HP at 800 rpm rather than the usual 835 rpm. The 6-645E was rated at 750HP at the usual 900 rpm.
Incidentally, Overmod mentioned balance problems with the 8-645E. I know there were problems with the 8-567C, which resulted in a revised firing order in the 8-567CR which appeared in the third and subsequent orders of G8B. There were quite a few 8-567CR and 8-645E engines in Australia, many still in main line service. These units are used on light lines in grain service, but tend to stay on the train with larger power on the steep grades over the mountains to the export ports.
Peter
In all the cases I was involved with, the curving limit was driven by the coupler length and swing of the locomotive and those same factors of the vehicle it's coupled to; the limit of the single unit curving is always a lesser radius. For many years I've been fascinated with the 8 axle turbines and U50's with their truck attached couplers and draft gear, similar to many scale models for dealing with tight curves. To deal with the increasing locomotive length over that last several generations, I once proposed a 3 axle radial truck with integral draft gear/coupler/endplate, but got a very chilly reception from the rest of the organization.
Dave
The switchers used by many interurbans were designed for the curves found in streetcar trackage. OTOH, I'm not sure if the coupler mountings would be kosher for a locomotive subject to FRA regulation.
I can't help but wonder if we're trying to answer this question backward. What does the OP actually need the locomotive to do, in terms of number of loads and service, and how sharp are the horizontal and vertical curves, and what is the state of track construction?
And now that it's been mentioned, what is the specific timeframe of this effort?
I still don't quite understand the tiny downsized engine requirement. Making a locomotive capable of negotiating very sharp curves is done in the truck design, and how the bolsters, traction-motor cables and cooling, and air lines are rigged. A smaller engine would only be a matter of fuel economy or marginal weight reduction, and if either of those is a concern I think re-engining with something other than a GM locomotive two-stroke would be a wise idea.
I worked for companies and seen other companies that had in house rail networks. They used sw1200 on the straighter tracks and GE 44 ton on very curved track. One used fireless locomotive but had give it up because the maker went out business. Some of these were looking for a little bigger than GE 44 ton for the curved track. Gary
IA and eastern If i went to EMD and wanted SW600 with 6-645 750 hp engine for tight curved trackage. Would EMD sell this locomotive or would sell SW600 with no engine and tell me to import the engines.Gary
If i went to EMD and wanted SW600 with 6-645 750 hp engine for tight curved trackage. Would EMD sell this locomotive or would sell SW600 with no engine and tell me to import the engines.Gary
If you're just switching an industry, you'd go get yourself a Trackmobile. If you were a running locomotive on the national network, you'd go get yourself a used SW-anything and have it rebuild/upgraded. I'd shoot for something with a 567C engine (SW-900, SW-1200) and Flexicoil trucks for reliability's sake, easy of maintenance.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
I have been distracted by a number of other things and have missed much of this discussion. However It seems to me that a GA8 or GA18 would be more suitable than a G6B if light weight and sharp curves are a problem...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EMD_GA8
The diagram shows the concept most clearly
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:S300%E6%8E%92%E5%88%97%E5%9C%96.jpg
Interestingly, Taiwan had both the GA8 and the related GL8
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EMD_GL8
The Australian G6B was a derivative of the EMD GL8 tailored to Victorian Railways requirements.
https://www.victorianrailways.net/motive%20power/ydie/ydie.html
The diagram is most useful in explaining this locomotive.
https://www.victorianrailways.net/motive%20power/diagrams/ydia01.html
The VR was operated by the Victorian State Government, and despite the perception that governments spend money without consideration, the VR was remarkably thrifty with its expenditure and the G6B (Y class) was a truly amazing example of this.
Way back in 1910, the VR decided to electrify its suburban rail network in Melbourne. I posted a documentary video "On Time" that showed these trains in another thread in these forums.
They ordered the equipment from GE but actual construction was delayed until 1919 by the First World War.
The powered EMU cars used riveted plate frame power trucks (as might be expected in 1919 or earlier) but after 30 to 35 years of service these trucks began to fail. Although new steel trains with cast trucks were being obtained, the VR had to replace the riveted plate frame trucks with one piece cast steel truck frames cast by the GSI licensee Bradford Kendall. Hundreds of these frames were required.
However only a few years later these elderly wooden cars needed replacement and as the steel commuter cars entered service these relatively new trucks becamre surplus.
Ever looking for a saving, The VR requested that locomotive builders offer diesel switchers designed around these surplus trucks, most less than ten years old (although the actual traction motors dated back to 1914 or so.)
Clyde Engineering built the G6B using the trucks as supplied (as seen in the links above).
As well as the 75 for VR (only the last 25 using 8-645E engines) five were built for Westrail using standard EMD export Flexicoil trucks.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WAGR_J_class_(diesel)
Interestingly, the VR found that some of their G8B locomotives (the later ones using GL8 radiators)
https://www.victorianrailways.net/motive%20power/t357_366.html
were actually lighter than the G6Bs and these were allowed on lighter lines in place of the G6Bs... This may have been due to the relatively heavy trucks and traction motors on the G6Bs, since the G8Bs used metre gauge D29 motors.
I hope this was entertaining...
You are right about what if locomotive.What i was looking at was something like street car trackage with that kind of curves and buying 10 locomotives to replace GE 44 ton locomotives. Gary
Clyde and all the other EMD associates got their engines from LaGrange. AFAIK, EMD did not allow anyone to build their engines locally until the Indian Railways contract in the 90's. But EMD did not do a lot protect their drawings so unauthorized builders started making copies, when the first one was I don't know.
I don't think the OP actually has a need for a switcher. It sounds like a "what if" that was just very poorly worded.
Contact this company.
Custom Locomotives - Greenville, South Carolina - Republic Locomotive
Perhaps the OP should consider a Plymouth or Brookville industrial design. It might be a better fit.
Overmod SD70Dude Could it make do with a 8-645, blower or turbocharged? The reason for the 6-645 was that the 'customer' specified it. As I recall there are balance issues with the 8-645, one reason there were relatively few of them built. Thing is, he was talking about derating the six-cylinder engine; why would he need more cylinders and a complex, fragile turbocharger?
SD70Dude Could it make do with a 8-645, blower or turbocharged?
The reason for the 6-645 was that the 'customer' specified it.
As I recall there are balance issues with the 8-645, one reason there were relatively few of them built. Thing is, he was talking about derating the six-cylinder engine; why would he need more cylinders and a complex, fragile turbocharger?
Fair enough.
Where did Clyde get their EMD engines from? Were they manufactured down under, or imported from La Grange?
It would be an additional cost, but not impossible to import a 6-645 from Australia if it turned out to be the only source.
Greetings from Alberta
-an Articulate Malcontent
SD70DudeCould it make do with a 8-645, blower or turbocharged?
Back in the 1950s EMD was willing to sell export model locomotives in North America, and also build customized units.
Some G8 and G12 units were sold to Canadian National and Ontario shortline/interurban London & Port Stanley. Some of CN's were Cape Gauge, as were the unique NF110 and NF210 units that worked alongside them in Newfoundland. And don't forget the GMD1, most of which rode on export A1A trucks.
All of these used a lot of standard EMD parts, the GMD1 for example can be thought of mechanically as a SW1200 on a longer frame, and the NF units were a six motor version of the same.
Why does the OP's imaginary unit need a V6 engine? Could it make do with a 8-645, blower or turbocharged? On that note, the GP15T is yet another example of a custom EMD unit, built with the lighter turbocharged engine to achieve the same power as a GP15-1 but also be able to run on the light industrial spurs found in its original home territory.
It should be noted that none of these were 'one off' units, they all had production runs. And I'll bet EMD baked in the customization costs into the selling price.
IA and easternWould EMD sell a locomotive such as G6B
As Mr. Goding indicated, any such locomotive built today would have a high-speed engine, likely a Cat C175 or Cummins QSK. (There are small-locomotive builders that will sell you a MTU prime mover, too, but I think the American motors are fine.) Unless you have other locomotives with 645 power assemblies, or you have special access to parts (e.g. through arrangements with a museum or shortline) there is little point in dealing with importing a 6-645 or fabricating a block and other parts for one. None of these engines were turbo'ed, and would have the relative problems that a Roots engine has.
Would EMD sell a locomotive such as G6B in the America.Gary
bogie_engineerNot sure who that is directed at, but I'd love to hear.
Thanks for providing him the definitive version he needed to hear. But you might recap the story about those special 'flexible' truck frames for the single-truck project you described a few months ago -- those might be interesting as an alternative to bogie trucks in his use...
Overmod Progress is not run by particularly nice people.
Progress is not run by particularly nice people.
Not sure who that is directed at, but I'd love to hear.
Regardless, PR/EMD sales folks would tell you politely that one new switcher is not something they would build for a number of reasons. If you wanted 50, they would be glad to help, but it would get a CAT C175 or smaller CAT engine due to the Tier 4 requirement. If you want other than a CAT or EMD engine, then they wouldn't be polite.
To build one of anything makes no sense for EMD for a number of reasons:
- Engineering expense - a complete set of drawings for every single part is required. Today, they only work with 3D CAD models so every piece that isn't in the system already needs modeling, then new drawings. Then routings to make or buy each part. To design a new model takes a lot of engineering - I know the SD70ACe development was over 500,000 engineering hours. Once the first design of a model exists, they budget 10K-20K hours just for design of customer specific requirements, like cab seats, refrigerator, electronic devices, wiring and piping diagrams and drawings, horn, bell, painting and styling, etc., but most orders have more customization where it's typical to spend 50K or more hours.
- Tooling expense - to build the structures, especially the underframe, requires major expense to make or modify existing fixtures. If there are castings required, that's vendor tooling. If you have to make new truck castings, you're looking at $500K and up for patterns, flasks, and coreboxes. I doubt the switcher truck patterns exist today, so you'd have to accept rebuilt parts.
- Service expense - anything new requires new service manuals and parts catalogs plus service coverage after delivery. Training on repair and operating is part of the sale as is warranty coverage. No new model has ever worked perfectly out of the box so there is the cost of engineering to fix it once it's in service.
- The learning curve - manufacturing hours to build the first loco of a new model takes 3-5 times more than the 20th one so you have to factor that into the production cost.
Any new order is judged on "opportunity cost". Those direct hours cost in the neighborhood of $100/hour or more but an order is judged for profitability on a rate of $300/hour (that was twenty years ago, likely much more today). Opportunity cost simply considers what you give up doing to fit this work in that could earn more money; there are only so many engineering hours per year available so you have to pick and choose the wisest way to spend them.
Overmod What trucks did that Baldwin 660 have? I dimly remember the Reading having a couple with really short minimum radius listed...
What trucks did that Baldwin 660 have? I dimly remember the Reading having a couple with really short minimum radius listed...
I don't know, but here's a teeny picture:
built 4/1937. Apparently sold to Santa Fe. And resold......
Ed
I believe that the OP is missing a very important point. He seems to be looking for a second generation SW1. What many don't realize, is that although the SW1 looks small, short and cute, it's actually the same length as all the other EMD switcher models. It's right around 44' OAL. The shorter hood with the bench seat below the radiator makes it look shorter, but it's not.
IA and easternI should have said the time frame was 1970 to 1980.
So, as though analyzing this as a problem presented to EMD:
(1) what is the specific need for negotiating tight curvature, and what is the state of track structure, permissible weight loading, or other considerations involved?
(2) Why should the engine be derated below 'normal' for this application -- or why use a 645 instead of 567 for this small application if derating it? (Keep in mind that using 645 power assemblies on a 567 and rebalancing things in the engine to suit is not done to increase power to "645 levels", only to allow standardization of components when road locomotives largely use 645s...)
(3) does the budget permit designing or using trucks or suspensions with extremely short effective rigid wheelbase?
Personally, I'd think that in order to justify the costs of a custom design like this, you'd want additional horsepower to do 'more' work in a given time and thereby increase marginal revenue per crew or locomotive hour. Probably with some kind of good controlled-creep adhesion system on all wheels, if those were marketed in your period.
I should have said the time frame was 1970 to 1980.Gary
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.