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.
Geez...it wasn't "America's Supertrain-Core-77" was it? Naw, that would be a trick Question!
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.
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, 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?
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.
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!
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!
Heisler, supposedly with two 180hp Buda engines, Westinghouse for the electrics, and roller-bearing trucks to boot:
I had thought this thing had Murphy engines -- and the Murphy engine would be just about ideal for this kind of railroad service: unit injectors, four valves per cylinder, worm-drive DOHC, starting by motoring the generator ... better than a Maytag for leaving its service people starving and out of work.
Interestingly enough, there is a whole page at the Geared Steam site cataloguing lots of the steam locomotives converted to internal-combustion power:
http://www.gearedsteam.com/converted.htm
This small builder of specialty steam locomotives built one diesel-electric in its later years. One of its customers converted a 24-ton steam engine into a diesel, which still exists.
RME
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fkS9FMhxPn0&t=1m44s
rcdrye In addition to some "normal" GE industrial diesels Ford bought eight 125- to 132-ton center cabs with some really nice automobile-style grills, allegedly to look like a 1939 Ford. All of them eventually ended up on the Wellsville, Addison and Galeton in western New York. http://rrpicturearchives.net/showPicture.aspx?id=3887106
In addition to some "normal" GE industrial diesels Ford bought eight 125- to 132-ton center cabs with some really nice automobile-style grills, allegedly to look like a 1939 Ford. All of them eventually ended up on the Wellsville, Addison and Galeton in western New York.
http://rrpicturearchives.net/showPicture.aspx?id=3887106
Focus of at least one very good article in Trains in the early '70s, when they were still running on WA&G.
One of them (#1700, ex-Ford 1006) did make it to preservation! She is at the Lake Shore Railway Historical Society museum:
http://lakeshorerailway.com/rolling-stock-of-lsrhs/
daveklepperTall enough so double-stack is no problem?
Not on the section of track where they remain
Tall enough so double-stack is no problem?
rcdryeSome of the concrete arches are still standing.
At least one source indicates that this is not 'for want of trying': it's too expensive to take them down for any purpose, including use as 'fill' (anyone remember what the folks who bought the Lackawanna Cutoff intended as one of their 'business purposes'?)
Personally, I suspect that some form of 'controlled demolition' would easily take the arches down and cut them into convenient size ... but I ain't speaking up about it, and nobody else should, either. They're a historic monument, and I think a significant one, as is.
This reminds me: although I always thought it ironic that DT&I was an all-EMD railroad from 1955, Ford got some distinctive equipment from a builder other than Westinghouse. How many, what was distinctive about them, and what became of them?
Some of the concrete arches are still standing.
rcdryePRR bought control of the DT&I in 1929, and dismantled the electrification in 1930.
Probably more correct to say Ford sold control of the DT&I (to Pennroad, the holding company, not PRR per se) because he got sick of the ICC tinkering in what he considered an industrial adjunct to the Rouge plant. Most of the aspects of the electrification were interesting, including the catenary support 'arches' in that popular material of the time, reinforced concrete.
Here's a picture that shows both the MG locomotives and what was possible with the arch material...
The New Haven had only two EF-2's, and they ran OK but maintenance was higher than on the EP-1 and EF-1 1-B-B-1 (2-4-4-2) "Ponies." They also had a Y-2 B-B switcher that was a rotary convertor unit, again with higher maintenance. DC thrid-rail capabilty was not an issue because no New Haven freight ran into Grand Central, and the occasionally-used and then abandoned interchange track at Woodlawn was reachable by 11000V AC catenary.
CSSHEGEWISCH The road in question is the DT&I, and the carbody builder was the Ford Motor Company, owner of DT&I at the time.
The road in question is the DT&I, and the carbody builder was the Ford Motor Company, owner of DT&I at the time.
Paul is correct. New Haven's GE EF-2 freight units the following year were successful but were not repeated, most likely because of NH's dual-voltage requirements for passenger units. Baldwin-Westinghouse, and later GE, built Mo-Gens for GN and VGN, and a couple of experimentals that ended up on the PRR. The emergence of practical rectifiers, both ignitron and silicon, ended the development of motor-generator electrics.
PRR bought control of the DT&I in 1929, and dismantled the electrification in 1930.
This engine was "steam road" size, and was mainly limited by a short electrification.
The car body was furnished by St. Louis Car Company, and the railroad was an AC interurban line, if I remember correctly. May have been the South Shore, original electrification, before Insull and conversion to dc 1500V. I know there was such a locomotive, but I may be in error of it being the first.
Since this has sat for a week without action, here's a new question...
GN's and VGN's motor-generator units were extremely successful. Some NYNH&H freight and switching units were built about the same time as GN's Z-1 units, though NYNH&H went back to AC motors for later orders. The first successful motor-generator unit was equipped by Westinghouse in a carbody from a company not normally associated with locomotives. Name the railroad and the builder.
It looks like my electric sources failed fact checking... The source I used - the usually reliable Bill Middleton - had it exactly backwards.
At 720,000 pounds GN's B-D+D-B W-1 electric weighed less than a UP Big Boy (minus tender) but outweighed a DM&IR Yellowstone by a bit. Beat either one of them on tractive effort. Actually Virginian's EL-2B weighed in at around 1,000,000 pounds, leaving the W-1, the Yellowstone and the Big Boy (without tenders) as lightweights.
I pass the baton to RME who got the answer I wanted, even though I fouled up on the question.
For 'successful' locomotives, I'd say the GN W-1.
For unsuccessful locomotives, why not the Frankenstein result involving one of the W-1s, the infamous UP coal turbine? (Counts as a whole locomotive, including the PA, tender, and all...)
Not Big Liz, though this design could have run on the PRR.
How about Pennsy FF-1 Big Liz.
Nope. the "Big Engine" was a single unit with no tender.
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