it has only taken me 7 years but now have hard evidence that no FT's were built to haul passenger trains in WWII. some were converted but none were built at EMD.
Ok, not saying you are incorrect (after all, wasn't the original concept: F-units for Freight and E-units for passenger), but if you are correct, you might have to edit wiki entries such as this:
The first FTs built strictly as a passenger unit was the Santa Fe 167 four unit set in February 1945
From a different souce, stressing EMD involvement in building them:
The Santa Fe's first passenger F-unit was FT locomotive 167LABC which was built with gearing and equipment for passenger service by EMD at Santa Fe's request in February 1945. Originally delivered in freight colors, it was tested in passenger service and was apparently successful enough as a passenger engine that it was repainted into the red and silver passenger scheme similar to that used on the 2 class E1's
A lot of FT's were delivered with a 'passenger capability'. The ATSF took delivery of a FT set with S/G and passenger gearing during the war years(1945). It was delivered in the freight paint scheme, but was built for testing in mountain passenger service.
The Milwaukee Road also took delivery of FT's with S/G's(1941).
The GN took delivery of two FT 'AB' sets with S/G's and no D/B(1941) There were used in passenger service on the Badger/Gopher trains.
Many modern steam designed for freight service(4-8-4) were delivered with steam hoses, and though the rarely ran in passenger service - They had the capability to be used in passenger service. When EMD designed the FT, it had the capability for housing a S/G and boiler water tanks.
Jim
Modeling BNSF and Milwaukee Road in SW Wisconsin
During WWII all locomotive production was controlled by the War Production Board and that body decreed that no new passenger engines or equipment was to be built for the duration of the conflict and that production of freight diesels was to be earmarked for those railroads whose routes were of maximum strategic importance to the war effort. by the beginning of 1945 it was obvious that the war was going well for the |Allies so restrictions were eased up and a trickle of engines intended for passenger service were allowed. Once the war ended, passenger and troop train traffic became extremely heavy as demobilized soldiers and defense workers returned home and this resulted in the conversion of some FT units to handle this traffic.
So the OP's hypothesis is incorrect, some FT's were indeed built for passenger service during WWII (albeit towards the end of the war).Since some counterexamples were already provided, his "hard evidence" seems invalid.
OTOH, what JimValle mentioned seems to be match with historical records.
So the remaining question is what is the "hard evidence" that rbandr has concering Wartime FT production by EMD?
The OP is partly right. I had read somewhere (can't remember where) that the FTs were delivered capable of having a steam generator but was not equipped at delivery. They got away with the gear ratios because of the time sensitive war production freight being moved. (Perishables and tank cars were fast tracked at passenger speeds) The railroads themselves installed the steam generators.
It seems that the WPB had it in for the other diesel locomotive builders during WW2. ALCO, Baldwin, and Fairbanks Morse were only allowed to develop and build steam locomotives during this time while EMD was allowed to develop and build diesel electric locos. By the time the war ended EMD had already worked out the bugs and developed new products while the other builders tried to play catch up. Selling all those 567 engines to the navy gave EMD a definite advantage after the war. The 1945 year of the 567 saw the crankshaft problem non existent on newer models. While the FM opposed piston engines worked great in submarines and other floating crafts it did not fair well in rigid frame locomotives. Baldwin had a chance with real reliable locos but did not cater to the railroads needs and went their own way in control systems. They and ALCO also spent a considerable amount of resources after the war keeping up with steam locomotive parts supplies and foreign contracts for steam.
Pete
I pray every day I break even, Cause I can really use the money!
I started with nothing and still have most of it left!
JimValle During WWII all locomotive production was controlled by the War Production Board and that body decreed that no new passenger engines or equipment was to be built for the duration of the conflict and that production of freight diesels was to be earmarked for those railroads whose routes were of maximum strategic importance to the war effort. Not true the War Production Board did not get its powers until April 1942 and the US entered the war war in December 1941. E6s were built until September 1942, FTs were built with steam generators or railroads had the ability to add them, it's in the online FT owners manuals. ALCO-GE DL109s were built with steam generators. By the beginning of 1945 it was obvious that the war was going well for the |Allies so restrictions were eased up and a trickle of engines intended for passenger service were allowed. The restrictions were eased as of January 1, 1945 by a letter written in late 1944, it's in Steinbrenners Alco book, have to look it up. Once the war ended, passenger and troop train traffic became extremely heavy as demobilized soldiers and defense workers returned home and this resulted in the conversion of some FT units to handle this traffic. Traffic wasn't already heavy during the war! ! ! All FTs were built with steam piping, not necessarily equipped with steam lines or steam generators. It's in the FT drawings, ask Preston Cook! ! ! He has the EMD as-builts.
During WWII all locomotive production was controlled by the War Production Board and that body decreed that no new passenger engines or equipment was to be built for the duration of the conflict and that production of freight diesels was to be earmarked for those railroads whose routes were of maximum strategic importance to the war effort.
Not true the War Production Board did not get its powers until April 1942 and the US entered the war war in December 1941. E6s were built until September 1942, FTs were built with steam generators or railroads had the ability to add them, it's in the online FT owners manuals. ALCO-GE DL109s were built with steam generators.
By the beginning of 1945 it was obvious that the war was going well for the |Allies so restrictions were eased up and a trickle of engines intended for passenger service were allowed.
The restrictions were eased as of January 1, 1945 by a letter written in late 1944, it's in Steinbrenners Alco book, have to look it up.
Once the war ended, passenger and troop train traffic became extremely heavy as demobilized soldiers and defense workers returned home and this resulted in the conversion of some FT units to handle this traffic.
Traffic wasn't already heavy during the war! ! ! All FTs were built with steam piping, not necessarily equipped with steam lines or steam generators. It's in the FT drawings, ask Preston Cook! ! ! He has the EMD as-builts.
The OP's supposition is incorrect. The fact that some railroads bought "freight" FT's and later converted them for passenger use, doesn't mean railroads didn't buy FT's equipped for passenger service.
For example, Great Northern bought FT's in 1941 that had steam generators in the B units. The engines ran in a cycle, pulling passenger trains from Mpls-St.Paul to Duluth-Superior during the day, then returned to the Twin Cities overnight with freight trains (or vice-versa).
Of course FT 103, the A-B+B-A demonstrators that toured the US had steam generators and pulled passenger trains. FT's were designed from the start to be able to have water tanks and a steam generator in the B unit if the railroad wanted it. It was a standard option from GM/EMD.
rbandr it has only taken me 7 years but now have hard evidence that no FT's were built to haul passenger trains in WWII. some were converted but none were built at EMD.
Does your hard evidence include the condition of the Santa Fe's 167 set when it left EMD in February 1945? According to John McCall's Early Diesel Daze the 167 was geared for 95 mile an hour and each booster contained one Vapor-Clarkson CFK-4225 boiler and a 300 gallon water tank. The space normally used for fuel was used for boiler water and the booster units drew their fuel from the cab units. See pages 140-141 . There's a photo on page 141 of the 167 set leading the Chief through Pasadena dated July 10, 1945.
locoi1sa It seems that the WPB had it in for the other diesel locomotive builders during WW2. ALCO, Baldwin, and Fairbanks Morse were only allowed to develop and build steam locomotives during this time while EMD was allowed to develop and build diesel electric locos. By the time the war ended EMD had already worked out the bugs and developed new products while the other builders tried to play catch up. Selling all those 567 engines to the navy gave EMD a definite advantage after the war. The 1945 year of the 567 saw the crankshaft problem non existent on newer models. Pete
It seems that the WPB had it in for the other diesel locomotive builders during WW2. ALCO, Baldwin, and Fairbanks Morse were only allowed to develop and build steam locomotives during this time while EMD was allowed to develop and build diesel electric locos. By the time the war ended EMD had already worked out the bugs and developed new products while the other builders tried to play catch up. Selling all those 567 engines to the navy gave EMD a definite advantage after the war. The 1945 year of the 567 saw the crankshaft problem non existent on newer models.
Pete--
I must disagree here. Although others have long held to basically the same position as you wrote, it is not factually true. I have read in other sources that the WPB did indeed permit research and development of diesel locomotives. Alco most certainly developed their infamous 244 diesel engine sometime around February of 1944--that's where the model name comes from.
It is factually true that ALCO failed to adequately test the 244 (certainly not adequately as compared to anything EMD did--and EMD had much deeper pockets) and they did rush it into production hoping it would be ok, and it just wasn't.
Additionally, due to the WPB restrictions, roads like the New Haven conveniently did an end-around by acquiring a nice sized fleet of Alco DL-109 passenger diesels by classifying them as freight engines and assigning them to dual service roles.
The traditional steam locomotive builders were flat out brazenly arrogant and just plain stupid--EMD received no special favoritism. Trains Magazine did a very illuminating article several years back regarding how the failure of ALCO is considered in American business schools to be one of the classic worst textbook cases of obsolescent management being unwilling to change. Even after World War II a significant portion of their middle and senior level management believed that the steam locomotive would always have a place in America. They were utterly out of touch with reality to the point of being delusional--and the resulting poor management of ALCO is what put them so far behind they ultimately were unable to catch up. Their rushing the 244 engine to market, with its crankshaft and turbocharger failures, destroyed their reputation such that few wanted to give them a second chance with second generation diesels.
IIRC Alco was allowed to produce diesel switchers during WW2, while GM was only allowed to produce freight diesels (FTs). In the five years before the FT went into production, probably 90% of diesels produced were switchers (with the other 10% being passenger engines), so Alco actually should have benefited from the 'monopoly' of being the only builder allowed to make what seemed to be the most desired diesels - switchers.
EMD trickled out about 60 E7s before the end of WW2. That's one every 3.5 days.
Guys.
Found this.
http://blog.timesunion.com/rittner/alco-and-ww-ii/167/
ALCO output during WW2. 6,000 tanks, 1087 steam locomotives and 157 diesel electric locomotives. So I apologize for the previous statement. I walk with hat in hand.
Here is an example of how I could get the impression that EMD had an advantage.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baldwin_Locomotive_Works#World_War_II
Well EMD had an advantage in that in 1942 they had a road freight diesel on the market while the other builders didn't, so they were given the task of building FTs while the other builders built switchers. Alco did have the RS-1 but that couldn't really compete with F units for mainline freight traffic. Plus EMD did a much better job keeping their engines running, getting repair parts out and men in the field when problems arose.
EMD had an advantage in that they had the support of a much larger corporation behind them. This helped in advertising, and most likely also in research and development. Various sources have suggested that EMD had more manhours and money to devote to product testing than the other (traditional steam) builders possessed.
So I agree--EMD had several advantages in this battle--but I couldn't accept that they were a result of "government favoritism". Alco and the traditional steam builders were just not very wise or prudent, and that's an understatement.
EMD had a wonderful product in the FT, and their experience with that engine during WWII was probably quite valuable.
During the ensuing horsepower race that followed, EMD lagged behind whenever horsepower increases were made--instead hoping their stellar reputation for reliability would beat the higher horsepower offerings of others--and that strategy worked wonderfully up until they stopped building SD40-2's.
I finally found the hard evidence at the st Louis museum where they have a reproduction of an early ft. to meet the letter of the war boards edict and this was ESENTIAL DURRING WAR TYIME IE MARSHALL LAW. emd called them stand by steam generators designed to prevent the blocks from freezing when shut down. re member these engines could not use anti freeze, it would contaminate the oil. fuel was preciuse during war and there was no idling to keep engines warm. u shut off and drained the water. santa fe order was a nite mare for emd. just to make the coupler to replace the draw bar only between a and b was the reason that the ft's were going to be f,s 1 thru 9. by marshall law the ft's that were used for passenger service were converted at la graner by the delivering railroads own employees in house to get around the war loard. yes ft's hauld passengers but leagally speaking they could not be an emd built unit.
RBANDER,
I do not buy into your 'history' FT production started before WWII. Not sure what you mean by Marshall Law, but the War Production Board did limit production of many items due to the needs of military production. The WPB controlled strategic resources like steel & copper, with war production getting the first bite out of the pie. The WPB was created by executive order #9042 on Jan 16, 1942. In late 1944 the WPB allowed production of many items as the war effort was going well and the stockpile of strategic materials was good. The WPB was abolished in November of 1945.
EMD and most other rail manufacturers were allowed to complete existing orders, but from mid 1942 through 1944, EMD's production was limited to FT's and 567 diesel power plants for marine applications. This is well documented by many sources.
AT&SF wanted 'couplers' on their FT's and the EMD engineering department developed the new coupler and battery compartment to make this happen. Some EMD engineering documents list these as model 'FS', but EMD sales & production records do not list them as such.
Your 'Standby' steam generator - if you want to heat an engine block when shut down, you need a very small steam generator and a pump to move the warm water through the block. Most of the time, railroad have just let the unit 'idle' rather than shutting down the diesel power plant. I have seen lots of GP7s & GP9's with a standby heater just behind the cab on the fireman's side - Usually this was to allow a unit that 'lived' in a remote location to be shut down in winter weather. The problem with antifreeze was that if the seals failed, the antifreeze would drain to the crankcase. Antifreeze does not 'boil off' like water and you can over pressurize the crankcase - leading to damage. Fuel oil was cheap back then and just leaving the unit 'idle' was a better solution.
For a really good read, check out this from Utah Rails:
http://utahrails.net/loconotes/emc-ft.php
I know that GN and MILW FT's were delivered with S/G's, and the GN used theirs in passenger service through the war years. Their are photos of them in Badger/Gopher service. There was no 'conspiracy' of railroad employees installing S/G's after hours at EMD. With WPB controls, where would you get the steel sheets and copper tubing to build a S/G?.
BTW, General Marshall was the 5 star general who was in charge of much of the logistics, including the WPB. And it was the 'Marshall Plan' after the war that led to the reconstruction of Europe. I am not aware of nation-wide MARSHALL LAW in the US....
I believe that he's referring to "martial" law and presumes -- incorrectly -- that it was widely imposed during the Second World War.
jrbernierI am not aware of nation-wide MARSHALL LAW in the US....
The Marshall Law was along the east coast pertaining to city lights near the Atlantic and Gulf shores..Seems these lights was backlighting convoys giving U-Boats easy targets. This lasted until at least '43 when the tide of war turned against the U-Boat due to better sonar and hunter/killer group defense. During these two dark years railroads was used as much as possible to move war material up and down the East coast and there was always fear of sabotage or air attack..
If one chooses to do a in depth study of WWII one will find a lot of things left out of history books and Hollywood's propaganda war movies made during WWII..There was also a ban on taking photos of railroads, bridges and other sensitive war targets.
Larry
Conductor.
Summerset Ry.
"Stay Alert, Don't get hurt Safety First!"
Marshall Plan - martial law.
Neither of which apply to this situation. It was the War Production Board that controlled locomotive allocations.
Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com
dehusman Marshall Plan - martial law. Neither of which apply to this situation. It was the War Production Board that controlled locomotive allocations.
Martial law has not been imposed anywhere in the US since the time of Reconstruction after the Civil War. The War Production Board was a board made up of experienced industrial leaders who helped the government use the resources available to the fullest by making decisions on what could be made, how much, and who it went to.
Many railroads that wanted diesels were forced to settle for steam engines, because the limited number of diesels were rationed to the railroads that needed them most. More diesels could have been built, but at the cost of fewer motors being built for submarines and ships, and fewer tanks and jeeps being constructed. The WPB had several members who were executives of railroads. The WPB had to try to balance between the needs of many different industries and the direct needs of the military.
Again, GN bought steam-generator equipped FTs in 1941 and used them on passenger trains between Mpls-St.Paul and Duluth-Superior, as did many other railroads. The original GM/EMC diagrams for the FT from 1940 clearly show a passenger steam generator and water supply, and GM offered it as an option. This was never prevented by the government. I believe they may have stopped or limited production of "passenger only" engines like E-units, but never blocked FT's being built with steam generators.
I'm afraid the OP's original post is incorrect, and his later "hard evidence" in it's defense is anything but....
sorry if straying off topic But
This is an interesting read for me as I'm trying to detail a couple sets of NP FTs in last days sceam , and these Stewart kits come with multi format parts for road specific detail but it does not really have the SG venting details that was available on later f3-9s .... BUT I do recall on the blue prints shown on a video on the" FT " I think called "the diesel that did it" or maybe "ft103" (very good by-the-way) it did show a space for the SG ....and if memory serves it was only in the B portion of the set where the cab would be in the A portion ...
SORRY to get off topic here but in one pict I found the roof stacks are different heights (see Pict) something I never noticed before ? but a neat detail I'm going to apply to my FT sets using some extra left over stacks from a vo-1000 stewart..
.It looks like two hi and 2 low stacks or am I wrong ?
I can't see the picture so not sure about that, but you are correct that FTs were designed to have the steam generator and water in the B unit - they basically occupied the area where the cab would be on the A units (the units were designed to run "back to back" so the boiler and water would be towards the rear of the B units when mated with the A units.)
NP did do some publicity pictures with black and gold freight FTs at the head of a passenger train, while waiting for their postwar passenger F-3 units to arrive, but I don't believe any NP FTs had steam generators for passenger train use.
wjstixI can't see the picture so not sure about that
Your picture is showing up. The extended stacks are quite interesting, I'd also like to know the story behind them.
Jerr,
Not sure about the stack extensions for the diesel power plant. What can be identified is:
All of this suggests a very late photo of FT's in service. BTW, here is a link to the NP diagram of the FT's:
http://research.nprha.org/Diesel%20Diagrams/EMD%20FT%205400A-5410D.jpg
Note that the last revision is June 30th, 1967. No S/G, boiler water tank, or standby heater are listed. I do see that the units have been converted to AUTO transition(penciled in).
thanks Jim ,and as always I respect your input.....
the TA was EMD's answer to the need 4 a b-b passenger engine. it was a one off which emd hated to build. remember that the emd division's sucess was based on mass production with options available. GM just did it better than anyone else. the stand by seam generators were not of a size to support the needs of a war time size troop transport train in the dead of a cold northern winter. AT and santa fe's engineering department worked with EMD engineer's to make a passenger engine to climb the rockies with all axels powered. thus the legendary war bonnet F's we know and love. all the old steam builder had the same chance as gm. now ge does the most business. it would be nice to beleive that progress rail will restore our country's ability to build world class passenger engines again bit that requires world class passenger trains.
The TA was a streamlined B-B locomotive built to pull specific 3 or 4 car consists for the Rock Island. Even the EA(B&O), the E1(AT&SF), The E2(UP/SP/C&NW Cities Streamliner) were all 'one off's'. The E3 introduced the 567 power plant, but Rock Island had custom tapered rear ends to match the Rocket Trains.
The EMD s/g's in the FT boosters gave a typical 4 unit set of FT's two s/g's. The AT&SF only needed to get to the next division point to refill the boiler water tanks. The Santa Fe's later F's also had s/g's only in the booster units. Getting from Chicago to Kansas City was the really 'frigid' part of the run. The rest of the run is in a warmer clime. BTW, the AT&SF used steam ejector A/C, so they used the s/g's in the summer time as well.
The EMD E's needed helpers to climb Raton - and the later Alco PA's also had a hard time with overheating the traction motors. The answer was using F's - Nothing new here. Many western roads used F's in mountain passenger work(NP/GN/D&RGW/WP/CN/CP). Good thing EMD had the foresight to build a freight locomotive with a 'passenger' capability....