Yup. Heisler built what was intended as an industrial switcher using components similar to those used on other center-cabs (both GE and Whitcomb used Buda engines), except for Heisler's distinct trucks.
The conversion did use a Murphy - Mutual Plywood mounted it in a hood in place of the scrapped boiler on a used Heisler using most of the original Heisler drive train. Later U.S. Plywood, then Simpson Timber. Still in existence, it was operational not that long ago. Probably the most complete "re-engining" job possible on a Heisler platform.
Your question, RME!
And I had one all ready, too ... about heavy oil in UP and SP diesels. You see how far that one got, over on the Trains Forum. Rats!
A U.S. diesel locomotive builder proposed a 2000hp passenger locomotive with an unusual transmission and mechanical final drive. Name the builder and the transmission. Extra points for explaining how it worked.
I, for one, would be very inerested in learning the answer. If there is no response in the day, could you provide the full answer and ask another question?
Any guesses here?
The only surviving technical documentation I know of for this locomotive (as opposed to 'railfan' recognition of its catalogued information) resides in a museum collection that has nothing overtly to do with trains - but does have something to do with the locomotive builder.
Another railroad considered the unusual transmission for a different and much larger application (for which the transmission was, in my opinion, admirably suited). This was not for the same reasons as in the passenger unit.
I will make this simpler.
The assumption at the time was that passenger locomotives would be used for high-speed streamliners, and that the top speed might actually be in the range of the "120mph gearing" that was applied to some locomotives including at least some of the original DL109s (which were extremely unlikely to see anywhere near that speed).
The particular transmission in question was designed to permit very high road speed independent of giving high starting TE by allowing the diesel engine to run at higher rpm without slipping. It was also intended for as-low-as-possible tare weight and transmission length, in my opinion at least potentially for the reasons Alco touted the PA's smaller-than-the-competition overall length and weight.
To my knowledge the other lines in this builder's catalogue were orthodox nose-suspended diesel-electric; this was as dramatic a difference with contemporary passenger diesel locomotives as the diesel-hydraulics in places like Germany and Britain were to be.
And no, the transmission was not hydraulic, or involve a lock-up clutch for 'high' as in the RDCs.
Geez...it wasn't "America's Supertrain-Core-77" was it? Naw, that would be a trick Question!
MiningmanGeez...it wasn't "America's Supertrain-Core-77" was it?
No, that doesn't fit (quite yet) into the 50-year scope of the questions. And the transmission, as I recall, was pretty standard electric (only the energy sourcas"nuclear"). I did have some fun with designing luxurious "modern" trains for the Breitspurbahn system (3m gauge) when I first learned about it in the days of the infamous "Case for the Double-Track Train" article, but I think the likelihood of large heavy 'double-track optimized' service was never very practical.
This was a standard-gauge proposal for standard-gauge, conventional American passenger service. It would have coupled using a standard passenger coupler, probably at standard height, although it could probably have been built much lower (probably lower than a Speed Merchant, which is still an amazing accomplishment considering the height of the prime mover!) for special lightweight consists. My opinion is that there was some recognition about the Talgo Train 'prototype' (the one with the special locomotive built by ACF) and this general design was better than 'the competition' for use with such a train.
RME Any guesses here?
Fairbanks-Morse 2000 hp engine with DC electric transmission providing 500 hp to each driving axle?
http://www.hosam.com/fm/fmhist.html
A wonderful reference, whether or not the answer is the right one. But it probably is. thanks.
Edit: why was the reference removed?
The only other thing I can think of as a possibility would be a Baldwin(-L-H) diesel-hydraulic - something like an oversize Train-X Xplorer. The Maybach engine BLH used was common in contemporary German designs, including the SP's (and D&RGW's) K-M units built later.
wanswheelFairbanks-Morse 2000 hp engine with DC electric transmission providing 500 hp to each driving axle?
I always wondered why FM didn't put the H20-44 mechanicals into a passenger carbody with high-speed equalizer trucks. Might have been an early discovery of the high-speed-wheelslip-induced flashover problem described for the 2400hp C-liner (and, I believe, shared with the N&W TE-1.)
The design I'm looking for started a decade before the actual FM-powered Speed Merchants, and received its transmission by 1950.
BTW, the Speed Merchants were only 1200hp (P-12-42) but you will notice something from the FM abbreviation about the driven axles. And, as with a number of HSR consists, two were used 'top and tail' on their lightweight consists.
They seemed to go bad remarkably quickly after being laid up at Cedar Hill, almost as quickly as the GG1s did when Wilmington stopped massaging them regularly. Pity one of them couldn't have been kept (not as much a pity as losing that last DL109, though)
rcdryeThe only other thing I can think of as a possibility would be a Baldwin(-L-H) diesel-hydraulic - something like an oversize Train-X Xplorer. The Maybach engine BLH used was common in contemporary German designs, including the SP's (and D&RGW's) K-M units built later.
This shows an excellent grasp of what was involved in lightweight high-speed transmission design.
The engines in the design I'm looking for were definitely American, and the transmission was decidedly different in operating principle from Mekydro.
Remember that the locomotive was intended to compete with 'traditional' contemporary passenger diesels - explicitly including those from EMD and Alco, and by extension the A-1-A Baldwins. It was my understanding that all the diesel-mechanicals and other specialized lightweight-train locomotives were not effective on regular consists, even if they were to be fitted with adapter couplers and lines.
Will someone please replace the reference to the excellent FM history?
daveklepper Will someone please replace the reference to the excellent FM history?
It's still there.
GE and one of its engineers had patents out (2272679 Feb 10 1942 and 2355409 Aug 8, 1944) for two different final drives. As far as I can tell both were intended for use with electric motors.
The first (2272679) involved a vertical drive shaft running through the truck center pin driving a a pair of helical drives, which in turn drive spur gears, which in turn drive what are effectively quill drives for the actual drive wheels.
https://www.google.com/patents/US2272679
The second (2355409) used a cardan shaft drive from an electric motor to what amounted to a transfer case with drive shafts to the helical drives. Of the two it seems the more practical.
https://www.google.com/patents/US2355409
Allis-Chalmers had a patent (2575242, Nov 13, 1951) for a direct drive Gas Turbine that also used shafts.
rcdrye daveklepperWill someone please replace the reference to the excellent FM history? It's still there.
daveklepperWill someone please replace the reference to the excellent FM history?
For the record, here is the directory listing to all the FM history resources on that site (not just the one posted)
http://www.hosam.com/fm/
rcdrye The second (2355409) used a cardan shaft drive from an electric motor to what amounted to a transfer case with drive shafts to the helical drives. Of the two it seems the more practical. https://www.google.com/patents/US2355409
This method looks similar to the one used on EMD's GA8.
CSSHEGEWISCHThis method looks similar to the one used on EMD's GA8.
The GA8 used a transmission attached to the inboard axles with the driveshaft crossing over the top of the axle. Looks like a spur gear reduction drive with helical gear final drive on the inboard axle, and shaft and helical gear drive on the outboard.
I don't know if either of the GE patents was intended for high-speed use, they just fit the date window.
so which of you trandmission authorities asks the next question?
Never got a response on the GE patents. Was one of those correct? I think RME owes us the answer, since anything else runs into guesswork (like the earlier answers clearly were not...)
rcdryeNever got a response on the GE patents. Was one of those correct?
Not even remotely close, in terms of the 'important' aspect of the transmission. (It is possible that one of the patents would have typified the actual final drive to the wheels, which I don't think was ever detail-designed, but even the arrangement proposed for the SPV2000 railcar would have done the necessary job of powering all the axles).
The question might be considered as being the alternative to a Mekydro arrangement on a comparable-size locomotive: the device connected to a diesel engine crankshaft that matches speed and torque with what is needed at the driveshaft to the wheels.
Yes, it would have had only one prime mover (geared to all wheels) and Will Davis thought it would be an unusual choice of series (not used, as other series from the engine builder were, for American railroad service.)
So the question still has not been answered? Maybe you should give the answer and ask a new question?
daveklepper So the question still has not been answered? Maybe you should give the answer and ask a new question?
I second that, been waiting far too long to hear the details of what sounds like a rather ingenious design.
Greetings from Alberta
-an Articulate Malcontent
SD70M-2Dude daveklepper So the question still has not been answered? Maybe you should give the answer and ask a new question? I second that, been waiting far too long to hear the details of what sounds like a rather ingenious design.
I'll split the difference with you. The locomotive was the 'passenger' unit proposed by Ingalls Shipbuilding. And the reason I know about the transmission and drive details is that the prospective transmission designer kept copies of them ... which are currently preserved in a museum that has little if anything to do with railroads.
Let's see if anyone can figure the 'details' out from that...
Other than its turret cab, the only Ingalls unit, model 4-S sold as GM&O 1900, was a pretty conventional diesel-electric, with its Superior marine engine its most unusual feature, except maybe its rear vestibule which had operating controls. I doubt GM&O used its MU capability much if at all, but it did have MU. For all its one-off nature it lasted in service for 20 years. I'm thinking GE electricals, but can't confirm them.
What I'm imagining here is some kind of planetary gear transmission with an otherwise direct drive off of a marine drive shaft. I would also guess the engine would be mounted low in the "hull" to limit the shaft angles required. Other than very big band clutches, something a lot like an Allison automatic transmission. The Mek Hydro design was split in half, with the torque converter mounted above the truck and the final drive mounted on the truck. I'm guessing Ingall's design put the transmission near the engine instead. Maybe dual-engine so one per tranny?
MUCH more fun than that! Single diesel engine, apparently (Will Davis says Superior 80 series, not 65 series as I'd have expected). The transmission IS marine derived, but it has no clutches; in fact, as designed, there is no direct contact between engine and driveshaft (!) and in theory it can act as either an over- or underdrive.
The transmission did evolve separately in subsequent years. I think it remains an interesting option for lightweight trains.
RME MUCH more fun than that! Single diesel engine, apparently (Will Davis says Superior 80 series, not 65 series as I'd have expected). The transmission IS marine derived, but it has no clutches; in fact, as designed, there is no direct contact between engine and driveshaft (!) and in theory it can act as either an over- or underdrive. The transmission did evolve separately in subsequent years. I think it remains an interesting option for lightweight trains.
I remember somewhere reading that a geared transmission was proposed for a railroad locomotive that would work like a contemporary North American automated truck transmission.
An automated truck transmission on contemporary trucks works like this, the transmission's control unit takes control of the trucks engine computer and first disconnects the gears then adjusts the engine RPM so the gear speeds for the next gear all match without grinding the gears.
What this is before automated truck transmissions is how drivers "floated gears". Basically just matched the engine rpm's to the gears either by ear or tachometer.
These advantage of this was no clutch was needed. The clutch being the one part that is subject to wear depending on how much torque is going thru the clutch.
if this sounds long winded my apologies, I'm not good at explaining things in an economy of words.
The modern truck transmissions I am aware of do not 'shift gears' in the traditional manner: all the gearsets run in constant 'perfect mesh' all the time, and the ratio is selected with variable clutch packs at each set. This eliminates the need to 'double-clutch' or use synchronizers to get gear teeth to line up, or the need to design tooth profiles to be more tolerant of shock and wear if being 'floated' against each other while transmitting driveline momentum or torque that is nominally balanced. What you do with the engine is "predict" what the input driveline speed should be when the new pack is engaging (and then fully engages) and adjust the engine parameters, including crankshaft speed, to minimize actual wear or heat loss (and, with a diesel engine, a couple of other things) before the clutching locks up for direct drive in the selected ratio. Depending on the engine latency and various rotating inertias, this can be done within the time of 10-20 revolutions; the limiting factor sometimes becomes the rate at which the engine's speed can be varied to avoid pollution issues. Since both output torque (net of all inertia) and shaft speeds are being monitored, there need be very little actual wear on the internal clutch packs, but they can also be designed in ceramics and run 'wet' for very long wear.
Having in fact designed a locomotive-size multiple-speed transmission, I would be happy to say that this, indeed, was part of what the Ingalls passenger locomotive could provide. I have seen no indication, however, that there was more than one final-drive speed, and all the gearing involved was fixed-ratio from the transmission to the wheels.
The transmission was not originally intended for railroad service, but a very important railroad had considered it for a very important (at the time) steam locomotive.
RMEThe transmission was not originally intended for railroad service, but a very important railroad had considered it for a very important (at the time) steam locomotive.
PRR's turbine?
Login, or register today to interact in our online community, comment on articles, receive our newsletter, manage your account online and more!
Get the Classic Trains twice-monthly newsletter