how many sets were built 4 cold weather?
Are you talking about a 'standby' heater for the diesel, or a S/G for heating passenger cars? ATSF 167 and the first order of MILW FT's were delivered with factory installed S/G's. GN had two AB sets of FT's delivered with S/G's as well.
Jim
Modeling BNSF and Milwaukee Road in SW Wisconsin
the term stand-by was used to appease the war boards edict of no new passenger diesels. it was no longer enforced. that is why toward the end of wwll we saw the birth of B-B passenger diesels with all weight caring wheels powered. the draqw back of an A-1-A truck is no traction from the idler axel?
rbandr ...the term stand-by was used to appease the war boards edict of no new passenger diesels.
...the term stand-by was used to appease the war boards edict of no new passenger diesels.
I'm not so sure.
Consider that the units Jim was talking about (GN 250 & 251) had a steam generator and a water capacity of 1800 gallons--pretty typical for steam heat. BUT almost all of GN's FT's had steam generators. These other units had one boiler for two and three units and two boilers for four units. Water capacity was typically 300 gallons per boiler. I think those might very well be referred to as stand-by heaters, as the water capacity is minimal.
Ed
rbandr the term stand-by was used to appease the war boards edict of no new passenger diesels. it was no longer enforced. that is why toward the end of wwll we saw the birth of B-B passenger diesels with all weight caring wheels powered. the draqw back of an A-1-A truck is no traction from the idler axel?
Could you re-state this idea more clearly? I'm not sure I follow your reasoning.
Once again you are missing the facts. EMD had been producing B-B trucked passenger engines since the mid-10930's. The "birth" of B-B trucked passenger engines was BEFORE WW2 not after. There was no "drawback" to having an A-1-A truck on a passenger engine since the idea is to have a longer wheelbase and amoother ride at higher speeds of a passenger train. It was designed that way on purpose. As a matter of fact ATSF B-B trucked passenger units built in 1935 were retrucked with A-1-A trucks.
The last B-B trucked FP-9 was built in 1959 and the last A-1-A E-9 was built in 1963.
Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com
7j43kConsider that the units Jim was talking about (GN 250 & 251) had a steam generator and a water capacity of 1800 gallons--pretty typical for steam heat. BUT almost all of GN's FT's had steam generators. These other units had one boiler for two and three units and two boilers for four units. Water capacity was typically 300 gallons per boiler. I think those might very well be referred to as stand-by heaters, as the water capacity is minimal.
IIRC, the 3 unit FT's on the GN had the FTSB 'short' booster and no S/G or D/B's. They were purchased for helper duty on Marias Pass. The 4 unit FT's in the 400 series were purchased for freight service and I do not think they had S/G's.
The later F3 and F7 passengers sets were ordered in 3 unit sets with no D/B, but a S/G in the rear of each unit. They had 600 gallon 'hatch' tanks where the D/B equipment was normally located. The 'B' units also had a 1200 gallon water tank in the forward section of the carbody. This gave each 3 unit set 3 S/G's and 3000 gallons of boiler water(plus the 200-300 gallonns in each S/G). They were equipped with water pumps to move the water supply between all 3 units.
Somehow I suspect of OP is just 'trolling'.....
ML
Jim,
The three unit FT's were equipped with one each (in the B unit) Vapor 4932-A-1 boilers. GN 300 had a water capacity of 200 gallons, GN 301-305 had 300 gallons. GN 400 to 428 (even) (ABBA) had two unspecified Vapor boilers with 600 gallons of water capacity. As of 1952, 400B, 402B and 404B had their boilers removed.
All the above is from a Great Northern locomotive diagram book dated 1952.
Perhaps these locomotives were built by EMD with the boilers. Or perhaps GN added them. But note that GN DID remove three boilers. A look at the original specifications might resolve the question.
wjstix rbandr the term stand-by was used to appease the war boards edict of no new passenger diesels. it was no longer enforced. that is why toward the end of wwll we saw the birth of B-B passenger diesels with all weight caring wheels powered. the draqw back of an A-1-A truck is no traction from the idler axel? I'm afraid once again you're showing an almost complete ignorance of both US and railroad history. No one did anything to "get around" the War Production Board - especially since WPB included railroad executives!! The production of diesels was limited due to limited availability of steel, copper wire, etc. so only railroads that could demonstrate a real need for diesels were allowed to buy diesels. There were very few passenger diesels in Jan. 1942, most railroads still ran all steam - many of the engines were relatively new engines built in the 1920's and 1930's. They didn't really NEED diesel passenger engines the way say the Santa Fe or M-St-L needed freight diesels.
The facts do "speak" for themselves. Unfortunately you're not stating facts. FTs weren't meant to replace E-units, and no one said they were. FTs were designed to be road freight engines that could be ordered with steam generators for passenger use; an option some railroads chose to order. EMD wouldn't offer options if it didn't want railroads to use them.
Again, you don't understand the WPB and how it worked. It coordinated manufacturing in the US, and included railroad executives. They weren't like giving EMD X tons of steel a month and saying "here, see if you can build any engines with this". If a railroad ordered FTs, the WPB had to approve. If it did, EMD would get enough steel and other materials to build the units. If it couldn't approve the order, they could change the order to steam locomotives of a design to best meet the railroads needs, and Alco or Baldwin or Lima would be allocated the materials to build them. WPB tried to see that scarce raw materials went where they were most needed, and that what was built most helped the war effort.
rbandrthe facts speek 4 them selfs. emd was building standard catolouged units and did not encourage special orders. they did offer options but these were only available when it was able to get the materials during war time. the FT's were never designed to be passenger units. A-1-A trucks were to spread the weight of 2 engines in the E units. the TA was a one off that was the inspiration for the classic F unit passenger we so love and model.
If you want to bring up facts then your position will be in trouble. EMD had been building B-B trucked passenger units for years. The TA wasn't a "one off", it was actually a standardization. Both the TA (Twelve hundred HP A unit) and EA (Eighteen hundred HP A unit) shared the same car body styling (slant nose, flush headlight, large radiator grill on the car side, door near the middle, streamlined pilot). Previously the various units all had unique styling.
Having a passenger steam generator was a standard catalogued option. Since it was a factory option, I don't see how you can say they weren't designed as passenger units. They were designed as units that could be used in either passenger or freight service.
jrbernier The later F3 and F7 passengers sets were ordered in 3 unit sets with no D/B, but a S/G in the rear of each unit. They had 600 gallon 'hatch' tanks where the D/B equipment was normally located. The 'B' units also had a 1200 gallon water tank in the forward section of the carbody. This gave each 3 unit set 3 S/G's and 3000 gallons of boiler water(plus the 200-300 gallonns in each S/G). They were equipped with water pumps to move the water supply between all 3 units.
This also disagrees with the data from my GN diagram book. For the GN passenger F's, it shows fuel capacity at 2700 gallons and water at 4140 gallons. This would mean that individual fuel tank capacity was 900 gallons, rather than the typical 1200 of the GN freight units. I think the only reason that there would be a smaller capacity tank for the passenger units would be if there was also a water tank adjacent. Now, I can see a 300 gallon tank there. Or maybe they did a bit of shoehorning and got a 600 gallon tank in.
rbandr the term stand-by was used to appease the war boards edict of no new passenger diesels.
the term stand-by was used to appease the war boards edict of no new passenger diesels.
You asked about standby heaters. I gave you examples of same in GN FT's. And they obviously weren't real passenger heaters, as they didn't have enough water capacity. I use the term "real" to denote heaters that would/could be used on a passenger run.
dehusman rbandr the facts speek 4 them selfs. emd was building standard catolouged units and did not encourage special orders. they did offer options but these were only available when it was able to get the materials during war time. the FT's were never designed to be passenger units. A-1-A trucks were to spread the weight of 2 engines in the E units. the TA was a one off that was the inspiration for the classic F unit passenger we so love and model. If you want to bring up facts then your position will be in trouble. EMD had been building B-B trucked passenger units for years. The TA wasn't a "one off", it was actually a standardization. Both the TA (Twelve hundred HP A unit) and EA (Eighteen hundred HP A unit) shared the same car body styling (slant nose, flush headlight, large radiator grill on the car side, door near the middle, streamlined pilot). Previously the various units all had unique styling. Having a passenger steam generator was a standard catalogued option. Since it was a factory option, I don't see how you can say they weren't designed as passenger units. They were designed as units that could be used in either passenger or freight service.
rbandr the facts speek 4 them selfs. emd was building standard catolouged units and did not encourage special orders. they did offer options but these were only available when it was able to get the materials during war time. the FT's were never designed to be passenger units. A-1-A trucks were to spread the weight of 2 engines in the E units. the TA was a one off that was the inspiration for the classic F unit passenger we so love and model.
EMC was building/cataloging both 1200 and 1800 hp locomotives at that time. The RI 'TA' was a streamlined example. The Denver Zephyr 'B' units were also a 1200 hp streamlined passenger unit. The early 'E' units actually used the Winton 201A power plant before EMD developed the 567. The RI units used the V16 example.
The big issue with 'F' type passenger units was the lack of boiler water capacity. EMD addressed that issue with the FP7 in 1949. That 4' 'plug' allowed as much boiler water capacity as an 'E' unit.
exactly my point. there was a disput several years ago that the touring ft set was made to haul a passenger train. nothing could have been further from the truth. the passenger trains hauled by the ft demonstrators were never heated by steam made by the ft's. i hope this puts this point to bed.
effortless on my part. i sleep good
1. There was a "dispute" on steam generators in FTs several years ago, the OP in that case eventually admitted he was wrong and FTs could have steam generators (and that FT 103 did have steam generators).
2. I think you're confusing steam generators used to heat passenger cars with some type of auxilliary heater used to keep diesels warm in the winter, like if they were left outside or something. Otherwise, diesels normally were kept running all the time.
3. The passenger trains hauled by FT 103 were heated by steam, both A-B sets that made up FT 103 had B units with steam generators and water supplies. There are numerous books that cite that they were so equipped.
4. The FT blueprints are available online that were used to construct them, and instruction books for railroads to use in maintaining the engines are also online. Both show steam generators in the B units as an option the railroad could order.
5. You're wasting a lot of folks time trying to act pretend you know what you're talking about, but all you're doing is embarassing yourself. Time to "put the issue to bed".
wow i guess u will once again reject reality and substitute ur own fantasy world. do u live in HO scale.my trains are 1:1 SCALE on the FEC in front of my house in COCOA, FLORIDA and I own stock in it. They have always been EMD only and are the only former class one intrastate railway with a company historian. try to get SETH BRAMSON to change the companies history instaead of bulling people in ur little form. P. S> grow up BOY.
Don't waste your time Stix.
"do u live in HO scale.my trains are 1:1 SCALE on the FEC in front of my house in COCOA, FLORIDA and I own stock in it. "
u finally pulled up ur big girl mpanties and they are no longer in a bunch. a bunch of lovely cocoanuts that is. groucho marx said it best in the black and white movie about florida real eastate when asked by some one who wanted a house built in miami. "can we get stucco?" " Can u get stucco? OOO Boy can u ever get STUCCO!!"
GDRMCoMaturity is off the scale....