One of the pools ran between two city pairs. For that pool the two railroads in both pools shared all four stations, though they used them in a different order. The two railroads shared both end stations in the other pool.
The other railroad in in the four city pool shared only one station with the other two railroads, using two of its own, and one where it was a tenant.
The other railroad in the two city pool shared one station with the others at one end, and used a Union Station at the other end not shared by the two common railroads.
The railroad that didn't carry any sleepers on the pool runs fielded a couple of nice postwar streamliners in one pool, and ran its own parlors in the other.
Thanks for the info on the drive. It should be interesting reading (I can read German, so that's not an issue).
So..
Two railroads both participated in pool ticketing arrangements at each end of their respective systems, where tickets from any member of the pool were honored on any member's trains. By the 1950s one of the railroads handled all of the sleeping cars found in one pool, and most of the sleeping cars handled in the other (one round trip and a split with the third railroad, each handling sleeping cars in one direction only). Name all four railroads and the city pairs. Bonus for IDing the railroad with the sleepers.
As a little history: Bowes had a long working relationship with Cooper-Bessemer, so I wouldn't be surprised to find their engine in some of the extant material on locomotive drives.
In the Seaport Museum collection, you will want to look at the 'Railcar' drawings (designs 265, 266, 270), the "Locomotive, Diesel, Ingalls Ship Building" (1950) in box 94, and the "Locomotive, Diesel, 2000HP" (1950) in box 95
Patent for the 'fundamental' Bowes drive is 2465006; improvements by Bowes are 2503577 and 2747115. A good description of what one of these systems can do is in German patent DE102007001828A1 (there is a sort of translation in the Google Patents reference, but it is scanned (poorly) and the only download option appears to be in German from Espacenet).
It is interesting to consider the 'alternative' technology of diesel-hydraulics and its railroad commercialization (Budd, Baldwin Mekydro, KM and Alco among others) by comparison. At least one patent for concentric rotating 'dynamo-electrical machinery' improving on Bowes's design was recorded as recently as 2012.
Sorry we couldn't find it. Other than a post for page 1 of an article in Popular Mechanics (without the rest of the article) there's very little info about the drive out there. If you have the patent numbers I would like them, they're easy to look up. I should have something posted by tomorrow night, if not sooner.
If anyone has more questions or wants more information - say it now.
Otherwise rcdrye is up, I think.
Look right there and you answered the question - but you mischaracterized what the drive does...
Someone from Cornell, doing a retrospective on 'Tugboat Tom', described it (in its late-'40s version' as a "kind of electromagnetic torque converter" - it matches shaft speeds while transferring torque. I had originally (after seeing the hand-drawn presentation on it to PRR that is preserved at the Hagley) thought it worked like a self-excited inline traction motor -- it is more complicated than that.
Advantage is that it is far lighter and shorter than a full electric drive, with generator and motor(s) would be, and it does a pretty good job of allowing variable output-shaft (here, driveshaft) speed at or near the engine's torque peak. (This would have solved any issue with relatively low output speed with the Superior engine)I can provide patent numbers and drawings if there is interest. The Ingalls locomotive proposals (there are two sets) are at the Philadelphia Seaport Museum, boxes 94 and 95 ("Ingalls" and "2000hp locomotive" respectively). There is also a description of use of the Bowes drive in a lighter railcar, probably similar to what Budd developed as the RDC, and it should be interesting to compare the capabilities and cost of the two designs.
rldrye, I think you earned the next question.
PRR proposed a mechanical drive "V1" turbine in 1944, before modifying it to an electric drive design (using a marine-type Bowes electric drive) and then not building it at all. I assume the initial version was targeted.
rcdryePRR's turbine?
Ah, but which one, and when?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
daveklepper So the question still has not been answered? Maybe you should give the answer and ask a new question?
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...
Greetings from Alberta
-an Articulate Malcontent
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.)
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...)
so which of you trandmission authorities asks the next question?
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.
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
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.
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?
It's still there.
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/
daveklepper Will someone please replace the reference to the excellent FM history?
Will someone please replace the reference to the excellent FM history?
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
Allis-Chalmers had a patent (2575242, Nov 13, 1951) for a direct drive Gas Turbine that also used shafts.
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.
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)
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.
A wonderful reference, whether or not the answer is the right one. But it probably is. thanks.
Edit: why was the reference removed?
RME Any guesses here?
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
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