FT Demonstrators On Passenger Trains?

[wjstix]

FTSB's were used by roads that wanted to run three FT's in an A-B-A set-up. FT A units weren't originally designed to run alone - they had no provision for a rear coupler - so they always had a B unit, so you had to run either A-B or A-B-B-A, and many roads found that three units seemed to be "just right" for most purposes. I think the GN was the first to order an A-B-A set with the FTSB, with all three units connected by drawbar.

I would like to see Bowser/Stewart do an HO FTSB, I could see having two powered A units with a dummy FTSB in the middle with speaker(s) in it for sound. [:)]

[Anonymous]

It should be noted that all FTB units were set up for steam gereators. ei they had the space. One of the other tidbits about the FT was that several of the roads buying these units had no intention of usung them for passenger service and EMD built short B units without the space for the steam generator. Thus the term FTSB meaning short B. The GN, DL&W and several other roads had these units

[Eddystone]

I got out one of my reference books : The American Railroad Passenger Car part 2.

In the section on car heating systems on page 399:

"Pressure followed a similar upward course, from 30 to 60 to 130 to full boiler pressures of 250 to 300 psi. After pressures exceeded 130 psi, rubber hoses were no longer suitable. By the late 1920's flexible pipe connections between the cars were becoming more common. Steam hoses were made obsolete in January 1937 when they were barred from interchange service by the Association of American Railroads."

I don't know how much pressure a steam generator opperated at. Also could removing the hose and installing it when needed get around the interchange rule?

[wjstix]

Re the ATSF it was sort of the opposite. After the war ended there was a flood of orders to EMD for diesels. When Santa Fe found out it would take like a year or more to get F3's for passenger service, they decided to retrofit steam generators into some of their freight FT's and repaint them in the 'warbonnet' scheme and use them until the F3's came. The FT's were only used for a few years then all (or pretty much all) went back to freight service, though I think a few were kept in passenger colors as backups for a while.

We'll have to see about the steamlines/pilots. It seems like many later passenger F's had pilots very similar to the FT's at least in so far as they didn't have steam pipes sticking out of them, so it could be that the FT pilot / steam line arrangement was normal for F's with the 'freight' version of the pilot (i.e. not the type that had the cover for the coupler.)

I suspect the answer will be that a flexible / removeable hose was used when needed to connect the F unit to a train pilot-first, because a steamline pipe sticking out the pilot would be too easy to damage.

[Wdlgln005]

It's beginning to appear that the origonal FT's may have had some features not to be repeated in later models. Let's start with the steam lines, since it appears the FT103 pulled only 2passenger trains compared to how many freights? A nonstandard steam line may have been installed. EMD may have also been trying to sell the E6. With the war on, these units had a short build cycle, in 1940-1941. Later built FT's from 1942-3 may have been pressed by ATSF into passenger duty for the balance of the war. By 1944-5-6, with the war winding down, perhaps EMD was able to get back into a better production cycle. By then, the new model became the F3 or the E7.

[wjstix]

OK...but we already went over these things like a month ago !! [8D] What the discussion is now is how the steam lines came out the pilot of the FT as opposed to later F units. It's pretty clear it was some sort of temporary / removable connection, since it is visible in some pics but not others.

[twcenterprises]

RE: Ft's vs. FP7's

The reason the FP's were longer was NOT to accomodate the steam generator, as it would fit in the back of an F7A,, but to accomodate a larger water tank underneath the unit. RR's could use an F7 with a smaller fuel tank and larger water tank, but RR's didn't want to lose fuel capacity.

BTW, the original FT 103 eventually was purchased by the Southern Railway. According to my book "Diesels of The Southern Railway 1939-1982", none of Southern's FTA's had steam generators at any point during their careers. Only some of their FTB's had steam generators factory installed. Many of these (Southern) units had their steam generators removed in the mid-to late-40's.

So, to answer one question, the original FT demonstrator set had steam generators in the B units.

Brad

[wjstix]

I don't think any diesels were used for thawing ore loads, railroads kept old steam engines to do that, then went to infrared etc. Besides Erie Mining / LTV Steel F-9's only hauled taconite pellets, which don't stick together like raw ore does.

Good point about the m.u. lines, although I would think the same problems would exist for steamlines?? What got me thinking about this was that about a month ago rrandb added this:

"Here is a link to photo of a later FB7 with a steamline clearly visable in the large cutout at the bottom of the pilot. It would have had a door to cover it when built. " http.//www.northeast.railfan.net/images/tr_rdg900.jpg

At that point, he was arguing that since FT-103 didn't have this same door, it couldn't have had a steamline connection. I've seen a number of pictures of F-units that didn't have steam generators or steam lines that had this door in the same place as this FP-7 does (and units that did have steam lines that didn't have it) so I think it's possible that it is not something relating to the steamlines one way or the other.

http://www.northeast.railfan.net/images/tr_em4211.jpg

[jimrice4449]

This is speculation, but I doubt that an MU cable from the bottom of the pilot would be a viable option because of the likelihood of it's snagging at switches, grade crossings and such. Not a problem w/ the Barco steam lines since they used pivoting right angle fixtures at the joints which would allow movement only on a horizontal plane...no droop.
More speculation. Could those iron ore haulers have been equiped w/ steam generators to provide a means of thawing frozen loads?

[wjstix]

BTW - are we sure this door below the coupler on the bottom front of the pilot is for the steam line?? It seems like a lot of freight F's had them too, including Erie Mining F-9's which were not used in passenger service, just hauling taconite.

I wonder if they couldn't for be M.U. connections?? Remember as originally designed F units didn't have a way to m.u. thru the pilot, only the rear, so you could run an A-A set back to back, or an A-B-A set or (if you were the CGW) an A-B-B-B-B-A set, but you couldn't run an A-A-A set because there was no way to connect for multiple unit operation because two the three A units would end up pilot to pilot. This was eventually changed so that F units could m.u. from either end.

If that is the case, it would explain why FT 103 (which did have steamline connections but not m.u. capability thru the pilot) didn't have this door/opening, but many later F units like the EMCO F-9's (that had m.u. capability thru the pilot but didn't have steamlines) did have a door there.

[jimrice4449]

I'm a bit late jumping into this scrap but let take a swing or two. Fist on the front steam line. On page 6 of the"Revolutionary Diesel" there's a clear picture of 103 showing a flexible (rubber?) hose attached at the lower end to the two air hoses (the larger of which, by the way, is the brake line and the smaller the train communication line, a feature found only on engines used in psgr service.) There is no steam line door under the coupler. The likelyhood is that this feature, permitting the use of the more normal steam line connection, was added to the F-3 and later engines because the original approach on the 103 was deemed unsatisfactotory.
As for the GN FT dual service roll, a positive indication of whether a GN diesel was a frt or psgr engine is to simply count the headlights. GN psgr diesels (including Geeps) are equiped w/ two headlights, frt engines w/ one.
A number of posts point out the requirement of an SG for winter operation. On two of the RRs w/ SG equiped FTs (Milw and Santa Fe) the SG would also be needed for summer operation as both were big users of steam ejector air conditioning.

[rrandb]

The KCS has a beauitiluf set of FABA diesels that appears at our Union station frequently. While there is a F7A on static display it was never a passenger unit. The southern belle set is now HEP eguipped but at least one was SG eguipped I beleave. I will see if the senior engineers that operate them remember any details. There are only a handful of men still Passenger qualified on the KCS and only the most senior are assinged to the buisness train. Am still trying to get to St. Luois and chat with there historian where 1031A is on display. Maybe this weekend. Hopefully there is still extant evidence of steamline or connections. Thank you again for all your efforts and ENJOY. RMR

[wjstix]

From what I have been able to see in pics, apparently F-units that had a freight style pilot but were equipped with steam lines do not have any obvious steam line connections sticking out of the pilots...so it would seem that in fact a removable connection was not only not unusual, but was in fact the norm for these units??

[rrandb]

QUOTE: Originally posted by fiverings

I've found the photos that tell me the 103 was equipped with steam generators.

There's an article in the April 1975 Model Railroader on the prototype FTs, as well as a modelling article (the cover photo shows Gordon Odegard's Milwaukee Road FT model). The prototype article has a photo credited to R. V. Nixon on p. 49, with the 103 out on the mainline with the North Coast Limited. It's a "down on" shot, clearly showing the boxy air intake vents on both FTB units, of the style used on contemporary E units above their steam generator compartments.

More important is the photo on the opposite page, with good detail of the pilot of the 103A . On the fireman's side of the drawbar are two air lines, one with a smaller diameter hose than the other. The larger of the two lines is the air brake line; the smaller almost without doubt is a communication signal line -- this type of line is only found on locomotives intended for (at least part-time) passenger service. The real give away is the still-larger line found on the engineer's side of the drawbar. It terminates with a Barco steam-line coupling.

The B unit closest to the camera in the last-mentioned photo has one more clue. On the lower portion of the carbody, between the front end and the first engineroom door, there is a shadow which appears to be a small hatch cover, similar to the doors covering boiler water doors on later boiler-equipped F units. And right above that door, on the roof of the unit, is a projecting U-shaped pipe which is in all likelihood a water overfill.

perhaps there is a way to post a copy of this photo so all can see and lay this to rest. Anything is possible such as a removeable trainline conection it just would go against SOP for passenger service engines or mixed use engines. The "hidden" "f" end conection was behind doors mostly for apperances i.e. it makes the front of the engine look cleaner like shrouding on steam engines it looks nice but other than protecting from rocks or snow has little purpose.

[wjstix]

In earlier posts several people have described what a steam line connection looks like. I see exactly that on the pilot of FT 103 in two pictures on pg. 6 of the FT book I've referred to earlier. Since you are clearly very interested in FT history I'm sure you have this book. It shows a metal pipe coming out from below and to the right (the engineer's side) of the coupler opening in the pilot . The pipe has a 90 degree turn down, then there is a joint, then there is another length of pipe that is curved, laying flush along the pilot and curving down and then up in an arc. It's clearly not a hose, it's a pipe.

Yet, other pics of FT 103 and other FT's that we know had steam lines show engines in passenger service without this connection on the pilot. One pic in the FT book (the front page right after the cover) shows a pic of a steam line equipped Milwaukee FT without this piping sticking out - yet there does appear to be a round connector of some sort right where the steam line should be. I suspect the answer is that the steam line connector for the pilot was removable - it could be somehow attached (maybe screwed in) when the FT was used in passenger service and that A unit was closest to the passenger cars. When the steam line was not needed, it was removed.

If you go back to the December posts on this, you will see someone mentioning seeing pics of FT 103 (I believe on the NP) showing the same thing, he even names the type of steam line it is (i.e. I believe he gave the maker's name).

So...once again the 'mystery' doesn't seem to be all that mysterious !!

[rrandb]

Did not these engines have the steamline conections both fore and aft for use with passenger trains? You do not build a mixed use engine without a opening for the steamline conection through the plow unless its an articulated design and only to be run in one direction. A passenger type plow without the folding coupler is not an expensive "option".

[wjstix]

Well an E-3 or E-4 pilot was nothing like the FT pilot, the E units of that day had a much more pronounced "lean" to their nose that carried over to the pilot. The "bulldog" nose that the FT introduced wasn't adopted by E units until I think the E-7. GM changed the pilot when they changed from the FT to the F-2 diesel after the war, so comparing the FT pilot to earlier E units or later F units doesn't shed much light on the question.

There were three railroads that we know used FT 103 in passenger service - ATSF, NP and Great Northern. Santa Fe and GN ordered and rec'd FT's in 1941, each road rec'd one or two A-B sets with steam generators. GN used them in mixed service - passenger trains during the day, freight at night - the same way they used the two FT 103 /103A demonstrator sets in 1940. Since only a handful of railroads had passenger diesels in 1939, it's hardly surprising that the demonstrator FT"s would have steam generators in them to allow them to be used on passenger service. A railroad that couldn't justify the expense of a passenger diesel might be more likely to buy a dual-service diesel.

As far as "one offs"...ever bought a GM car?? I have, and they have stock models that you can order with factory options - air conditioning, power steering, sunroof etc. Different models have different options. GM sold diesels the same way, you had a set model that you could order, like an FT, but within that model you could order factory options (dynamic brakes, steam generator, etc.) These weren't "one off" orders, they were orders for standard GM products with certain factory options included.

[rrandb]

Thank you for all your efforts. This would make the 103 a very unique engine and the only known example of this arrangement. Not just the begining of the freight diesel success story for GM but as a mixed use locomotive to boot. As evidenced by ATSF's ability to convert the 159 for use with a steamline conection do you propose that GM was forced to used a removable rubber hose [?]. They had passenger type plows avalable for use on the E4's that were the same profile as the FT's. It would be very out of character for a company that preffered not to build one off's to resort to new and untried appliances on there most important engines to date? They had made great progress on coverting customers from steam to diesels first with articulated, and E series passenger engines. While the EB's equipped with cab's, E1,2.4,5's and the TA's are known examples of custom orders of a unique types they are as well documented as they are rare. The most telling evidence is that only 3% of the 83,000 miles were on passenger trains? Out of countless trains only 2 were passenger . A strange way to demonstrate a steam equipped engine. The most unusual exawple is the ATSF itself which placed the first order for an engine that had pulled one of the rare examples of a passenger train and who were able to have GM built a custom draft gear for its FT's. Yet they received none with a steam generator built by GM. They later wre forced to customise these engines to accept a stock and as demonstrated steam generator because none were delivered with one?

[SSW9389]

Mr. Abbey is being contacted by someone who knows him from the Santa Fe list. I cross posted a bit of this discussion to the Santa Fe list and got this reply from Andy Sperandeo and the Kalmbach Library files. [;)]

Hi Ed,

I was curious after corresponding with you yesterday and looked for some more information about GM 103 in our library. The Diesel Era book, "The Revolutionary Diesel, EMC's FT," has a photo on page 7 of GM 103 hauling Santa Fe no. 4, the "California Limited," at Nelson, Arizona. So the demo locomotive did pull at least one Santa Fe passenger train. Also in "The Revolutionary Diesel," a photo on page 14 shows AT&SF 159 with its pilot door open (apparently removed) and with the steam line visible below the coupler.

That book didn't help on the location of the 103's steam connections, however. In our library files I found closeup photos that showed no doors in the pilot but a relatively large pipe fitting inside the coupler opening, to the right of the coupler, or to the left as you face the locomotive. A photo at Livingstone, Montana, in 1940, where the 103 replaced a 4-8-4 on the "North Coast Limited," shows steam coming from that location next to the coupler. My best guess is that there was a flexible steam hose that could be connected to that fitting to provide steam to a passenger train, and it might even have been used on freight runs to provide steam to dynamometer cars.. Still guessing, I'd say that when not needed the hose was removed and stowed, and that's why it hasn't shown up in photos.

So long,

Andy

QUOTE: Originally posted by rrandb

QUOTE: Originally posted by SSW9389

Nothing in this link about passenger FTs just some ancient history on FT development from Wallace Abbey. http://utahrails.net/drgw/rg-diesels-index.php Go to the EMC FT link and read all about it.

Yes and a very good article and not just for Santa Fe. I am trying to contact Mr Abbey. If anyone knows a way I would be interested. As always ENJOY

[rrandb]

QUOTE: Originally posted by SSW9389

Nothing in this link about passenger FTs just some ancient history on FT development from Wallace Abbey. http://utahrails.net/drgw/rg-diesels-index.php Go to the EMC FT link and read all about it.

Yes and a very good article and not just for Santa Fe. I am trying to contact Mr Abbey. If anyone knows a way I would be interested. As always ENJOY

[SSW9389]

Nothing in this link about passenger FTs just some ancient history on FT development from Wallace Abbey. http://utahrails.net/drgw/rg-diesels-index.php Go to the EMC FT link and read all about it.

[wjstix]

Problem is the FT's were quite a bit different from later F units, they were shorter by about 2 feet and had different pilots, windows, vents etc. so trying to go by what "traditionally" an F-unit would do is likely to lead to frustration and confusion. In 1940 GM didn't have any "tradition" to go by !! [:)]

As far as pics of FT 104 on the NP, the vent in the rear roof of the FT B units is exactly where it's supposed to be for an FT B unit with a steam boiler / generator. If later F's were different or not isn't really relevant.

[rrandb]

QUOTE: Originally posted by gemotor

Just to add photographic illustration to "passengerfan's" post about the 103 operating on the North Coast Limited, two photos appear in Richard Green's "The Northern Pacific Railway of McGee and Nixon" on pages 221 and 222. They are both shot from above and show the air intake for the steam generators in the B-units. Ya gotta use your imagination to make out what the consist following the dynamometer car might have been. The 17-car train departing Livingston westbound included the dynamometer car plus 4 business cars plus 12 "regular" NCL cars.

Yes there is a vent clearly visable on the roof of the FTB units but you will notice it is in front of the access panel that is above the location where traditionaly GM's PSB are mounted. All other GM PSG's have two openings both an air intake and a chiminey directly above the roof panel. Why are the FTB's units different and where are the openings in the FTA's unit's plows for the train steamline connections? [?] Still no answers to how the "PSG's" were conected to there passenger trains except "maybe" a rubber hose through freight pilot coupler opening. This would be GM's first and last use of such a hose and very unlike any of there other train steamline fittings. As this was GM's first shot at converting RR's from steam to diesel for freight I find it hard to believe they would try a unique PSG and fittings to connect to passenger trains. There is evidence that areinforcer rubber conection was used for steam between A & B unit that were semi-permanantly connected and built with a stand by water heater type steam generator. This should not be confused with a passenger type high preassure steam generator with a quick connection fitting. [2c] As always ENJOY

[gemotor]

Just to add photographic illustration to "passengerfan's" post about the 103 operating on the North Coast Limited, two photos appear in Richard Green's "The Northern Pacific Railway of McGee and Nixon" on pages 221 and 222. They are both shot from above and show the air intake for the steam generators in the B-units. Ya gotta use your imagination to make out what the consist following the dynamometer car might have been. The 17-car train departing Livingston westbound included the dynamometer car plus 4 business cars plus 12 "regular" NCL cars.

[rrandb]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Eddystone

"I doubt if rudder could withstand the preasure to send steam to the end of a 17 car train. That's why they were pivot joints on hard pipe."

rrandb, the hose is not made out of plain rubber, it's rubber reinforced with steel braiding. It can definetly stand the pressure and temperature of the steam. I worked with and repaired hydraulic jacking systems and heavy haul trailers that used rubber hoses and pressure up to 10,000 psi.

Another place you could find these rubber steam hoses is in large passenger terminals and yards to keep the cars hot/cool while laying over.

Then was this in use in 1930's and why werent all the conections made this way? I am searching for another engine that used a flex hose for road use. The stationary steam lines for yard use were not suitable for road use. Its simular to the problem of suppling high preasure steam to the articulated engines. They were not able to use rubber hoses as they didn't last under road use. Comparing steam and hydraulic hoses is like comparing apples to oranges. There is not the same heat element and factor in steam to hydralic? [?] As always ENJOY

[Eddystone]

"I doubt if rudder could withstand the preasure to send steam to the end of a 17 car train. That's why they were pivot joints on hard pipe."

rrandb, the hose is not made out of plain rubber, it's rubber reinforced with steel braiding. It can definetly stand the pressure and temperature of the steam. I worked with and repaired hydraulic jacking systems and heavy haul trailers that used rubber hoses and pressure up to 10,000 psi.

Another place you could find these rubber steam hoses is in large passenger terminals and yards to keep the cars hot/cool while laying over.

[rrandb]

Thank you very much. I too am stumped on the pilot issue. The connection on the b end of the FTA units hung under the coupler adout 9" above the rail head. They may have always been used F end forward as dedicated lash ups? I believe the second air hose was for seperate/independent loco brakes that are seperated from trainline?? [D)] I have seen the modified freight plows and it is different from the doors on units with a folding coupler option. It is approx. 3' wide and 2' tall with the complete bottom of the plow removed.The doors were often broken and not replaced. I doubt if rudder could withstand the preasure to send steam to the end of a 17 car train. That's why they were pivot joints on hard pipe. There were train men who usually made the conections and not just a brakeman. I beleive they could also trouble shoot PSG's and may have been steam qualified mechanics as well??[?] I spoken to them often at the Knox.,TN. SOU station back in late 50's and early 60's.

[wjstix]

Thanks for your comments. [:)]

There is a good pic of FT 103 in Classic Trains "Diesel Victory" out now, where you can see the pilot pretty well. I'm far from an expert on these things but there are what appears to me to be three different hoses of some type, hard to tell for sure where they are connected up. In other pics I've seen , there appears to be two connecting joints of some sort on the pilot, one on either side of the coupler opening. It looks to me there would be room for a hose or something to come out under or more likely around the coupler as the opening isn't too small.

FWIW most later F's that I found pics of that were used as passenger units appear to have used the "freight" pilot and I couldn't see anything standing out as being different from what FT 103's pilot looked like. Just a guess, but it could be the freight type pilot allowed for a connection inside the coupler opening, but passenger pilots with the swing coupler had to have a separate door or other means to connect up??

Like I say, there's plenty of people on the forum that know a lot more about this part of it. [D)]

[SSW9389]

Does anyone know if Wallace Abbey is still working on his definitive FT book? This was told on the Santa Fe email list several years ago that he was working on it.