FT Demonstrators On Passenger Trains?

[rrandb]

The overhang was reguired for room to install a draft gear and coupler. They designed the other end too close to fit anything but a draw bar. When the SantaFe ordered there units with all couplers a special curved coupler to fit above the traction moters had to be designed. The Great Northern's ABA sets were ordered with drawbars and the extra overhang on the B units were not required. They were to be semi-permantly connected. They were built and delivered as FTSB's i.e. 5' shorter due to the lack of draft gear, drawbar and coupler assembly. The drawbars are the reason for the overhang. The later units no longer needed draw bars as the dispute with the operating unions was settled. The trucks were now evenly spaced. I am sorry but it has nothing to do with steam generators or sme fantasy 1200 gallon tank. 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 A steamline is not like an air hose. It is semirigid and swivels on flex joints. If a engine has one there is an access door in the pilot to get to it. It is covered when the engine runs forward. Both 103 and 103A would have these doors. Here are two links to photos of 103 as restored. Ther are clearly no access doors. http://exotic.railfan.net/ft103.htm http://www.northeast.railfan.net/images/emd103b.jpg And I was sure you would get the overhang question right. Maybe if we try hard enough we can change history. [banghead]. ENJOY

[wjstix]

So...let me get this straight...The FT demonstrators had a HUGE vent on the roof at the back of the B units that is very VERY obvious in pictures and was only used on units equipped with steam generators. But EMD just did that for looks because it didn't have a steam generator - which you have "proved" because the restored FT 103 doesn't have a steamline connection the same place that an F7 built ten years later has it?? Plus I just made up the "fantasy" 1200 gallon water tank?? Then where did all the FT B units that came out of La Grange with steam generators get their water from?? We've established FT's could be ordered direct from GM with steam generators, that being the case, they had to have water to make steam. As far as the steamline I honestly can't tell for sure, but the "hose" on the right of the coupler does look like what you're describing as a steam line. BTW the pic of the restored 103 doesn't have that, the restored one is clearly different than the as-built one in that regard. The original had two hoses (or whatever) on the left side of the coupler and one on the right. The one on the right appears to stick straight out and then turns down about 60 degrees kind of like a faucet. There is some sort of connection made to another section, which appears to be fairly rigid, it makes about a 90 degree turn and points back toward the pilot, kind of pointing under the coupler.

As far as the overhang, your point does make sense...but I think you missed my point. An earlier posting claimed that the first FT B units were the short ones, and that the reason why some B units were 5' longer was that GM later had to make them longer to allow room for the steam generator and water supply. I was pointing out that no, the original FT demonstrator's B units had the overhang, and therefore did have room for the steam generators and water supply and that it was only later that the FTSB came about with a shorter body and no overhang.

Anyway a couple of quick quotes:

"Model FT booster units were available in the standard 48'-1" length and, optionally, in a shorter 43'-10" length which eiliminated space at the rear available for a 1200-gallon water supply for the steam generator. The Delaware, Lackawanna & Western, along with the Great Northern, Rock Island, and Minneapolis and St.Louis, ordered some of the shorter booster units called FTSB's."

From "General Motors' F-UNITS - The Locomotives that Revolutionized Railroading" by Daniel J. Mulhern and John R. Taibi, pg. 23.
______________________________________________________________
Oh!! and here's a good one!!

"The demonstrators were geared for a maximum speed of 75 mph but could be re-geared to 102 mph, producing a true mixed-traffic locomotive....The booster units were equipped with steam generators for train heating, and this enabled No. 103 to show it's paces on passenger trains. The impression it made on motive power men was profound."

From "The Illustrated History of North American Locomotives" by Brian Hollingsworth, pgs. 122-123.

So...we have a book saying the FT demonstrators had steam generators and were used on passenger service as demonstrators. We have photo's and other documentation of 103/103A pulling passenger trains. We have pictures showing the demonstrators having prominent exhaust stacks on the B unit's roofs - a feature only found on units with steam generators.

Time to move on to other posting/issues, this one is settled !!

[rrandb]

They most obvious spoting features used to distinguish all EMD "F" units with SG's were the fact they were equiped with a 1200 gallon water tank that is next to the now smaller fuel tank under the engine. You can not mistake this detail. This reduced there range and this problem was addressed in the longer FP series. The additional space was for both the SG and water tank. They were drawbar conected as they were designed as one engine wand were never ment to be seperated from the other. The FTA had no coupler and the FTB had no controls. A good spotting feature for FTB's built later with hostler controls is the fifth porthole for the hostler to stick his head out. Based on conversation with men who opperated Southerns original FT's none of the original order contained SG's. They were freight only. The "demonstrators" were part of the original order. There is no clear documentation that EMD told them that 4 units had over 80,000 miles on them. These are facts and not speculation. If it makes any difference there have been many books published with bad facts about early EMD products. I will trust EMD's own records, Southern's records and the men who opperated them. You appear to be dissapointed but that cannot change reality. Some B' units had a vent above the free space and it can be mistaken for something it is not. If you can name any passenger trains these "as delivered" FT's were assigned to then your arguments might hold water. Conversely if you can find a railroad that roostered them as passemger engines you might have something. There are none. The facts are no water tank no steam.ENJOY

[rrandb]

P.S The restored 103 has no steam line, no water tank and no steam generator. Model what you like. As long as your having fun thats what matters. There is more factual info if you are interested. Ther is no listing in GN's records that the FT's were ordered, delivered or opperated as SG equipped. They are roostered as freight engines period. I'll get off my [soapbox] now. ENJOY

[wjstix]

All the arguments you make above have already been answered in earlier posts. Fiverings points out these FT's had steamlines and the steam boiler vents on the B units. I've shown these units were used in passenger service where steam for heat (and cooking) were required. Please re-read the earlier posts and PLEASE look at pics of the original (not resotred) FT 103 in 1939-40.

Unfortunately, you snide comments about my modelling etc. make me suspect you aren't being serious here, but just enjoy jerking people around. If you are serious in what you're doing, you really need to go to the library or LHS and look at the pics and references I've cited.

[rrandb]

Fiverings and your posts have both omited the missing water tank ,1200 gallons required to supply a SG. SantaFE converted there FTb's by using the fuel tank for water and suppling both engines from the A's tank. This cut there range in half. By the time of the F3b's GM offered an SG but the water tank reduced the fuel tank size and also reduced the range. With th FP7's longer frame with room for both water and fuel the problem was solved. I checked your references and can see no water tanks. All EMD passenger loco's from the articulated's eguipped with SG's on have them. They are the spotting feature on GM's GP(P) loco's as well.No water no steam. Did stewart provide the seperate water and fuel tank??? Vents and Steam lines do not a Steam Generator make. If I was only interested in jerking you around I would not go the trouble of investing my time and energy in amswering. I was only hoping to interject some humor in what is a very passionate topic for you.. I appoligise if I have offended anyone much less you. I am sure your modeling is fine.

[rrandb]

QUOTE: Originally posted by RGeorge

Any data that the EMD FT Demonstrators 103 were used on passenger trains? If so, what Roads and trains? (Not sure they were even steam generator equiped.)

Appreciate the assistance.

Question 1 YES Question 2 One maybe two. Question (3) Yes and no. the FT's that were used with steam generators had them installed by the railroads that owned them. GM did not design or build FT's with steam generators. Why. Well they already offered an E serie's engine. Maybe. In fact with the onset of WWII caused GM to cease pruduction of all railroad engines. When they were allowed to resume production in 1943 it was to build freight engines only to help reduce wartime freight backlog. They were prevented by law (war restrictions) from even offering SG equipped engines till the end of 1945. The railroads own shops were not "builders" and could install SG's in there existing FT's such as the AT&SF as mentioned earlier. This was a war restriction loophole also used by the B&M used to get around the freight only problem. In 1945 the first 'F' engine was now available from EMD as a F3B (P) and was offered with a SG option. It was a stopgap until the FP series was ready with the longer wheel base to address the reduced volume fuel tank and water tank issues. After the FP no "b" units were offered or built with the SG option. These are historical facts. May I suggest we post the same question on one of more or the other forum and see if my answers are that different from the other 200,000 members. For the pleasure of trying to answer your question with complete historical accuracy I feel that there those here that would rewrite the history of GM/EMC/EMD. The historic freight diesel that spelled the end of steam i.e. had no SG.

[wjstix]

So much of what you just posted is wrong I don't know where to start !!

As I've documented, several sources say FT's could be ordered with steam generators from the start, and that in fact in 1940 ATSF and GN did just that. In 1941 both railroads rec'd FT's with steam generators in their B units. Maybe because of the war, no FT's were produced after that with SG's until ATSF 167 in 1945, I don't know. The Diesel Era book notes that ATSF 167 carried water in tanks that would be almost impossible to distinguish from fuel tanks. Santa Fe also about that time added steam generators to some FT's to use on passenger trains. As I noted before, this might lead some people to believe that because Santa Fe added SG's to some FT's, that all FT's came without SG's - not true!!

I mentioned the 1200 gallon internal tanks in an earlier post. If you don't believe my sources, fine, it's no use rehashing that. If you say FT's had to have the same water tanks as later F's fine, but it's still wrong.

GN used their first order of FT's (which came from the factory with SG's) in both freight and passenger service between Mpls-St.Paul and Duluth-Superior, although they were primarily used on freights. (I'm sure I have a pic of GN FT's pulling the Gopher or Badger into Duluth in 1944 or 1945 in a book somewhere but I can't right now find it.) ATSF also appears to have bought dual-purpose FT's as backups, as the Santa Fe didn't use FT's on their name trains (at least on a regular basis) until 1945 or so, and apparently (as you pointed out earlier) neither railroad bought FT's to use primarily as passenger units on name trains. This still doesn't mean they didn't have steam generators!!

BTW your references to the Southern and the restored 103 (which is actually 103A) is irrelevant, I never said Southern 6100 had steam generators!! FT 103 came back to LaGrange in late 1940, and was there until sold to the Southern, repainted in GM's shops as Southern 6100 in mid-1941. I'm sure the Southern had no use for FT's with SG's as they already had plenty of E units around, so they didn't order the FT's with steam generators. I have to imagine the same factory that installed the SG's in the demonstrators could have removed them during the 7-8 months they were there.

I doubt the 103 restored in 1989 was intended to haul steamheated heavyweight passenger cars, so apparently they didn't bother to put steam line connections in the pilot. So?? This doesn't prove they weren't there in 1940. I don't care what was in or on the engines in 1989 or 1959, only 1939!!

The stuff about the FP-7 is also both irrelevant and wrong. The point of the FP-7 and FP-9 A units is that they were made longer than the F-7 and F-9 A units to allow GM to place a LARGER boiler in the units than was available on a standard F unit. It certainly isn't true that ONLY FP's could be bought with steam generators. (Very few FP-7's and FP-9's were built - all the diesel powered trains that used F's couldn't all have been using FP's!!) See pg. 53 of "General Motors F-units" by Daniel Mulhearn and John Taibi.

F3's and F7's could and were ordered with steam generators. F3's of the Monon, Santa Fe, Western Pacific (built specifically for the California Zephyr), CB&Q (Zephyr), GM&O, DRGW (California Zephyr) are all pictured in Mulhearn and Taibi's book in passenger service. In the caption of a DRGW set of F3's on a passenger train, they point out that "only the B units have steam generators". Not an FP-7 in sight, just phase III F3's !! F-7's with steam generators were at least as prevalent if not more so.

So...we've established that the demonstrator FT's had (in 1939-1940) steam lines (according to fiverings post) and steam boiler vents that are unmistakeable and were ONLY applied to units with steam generators. We have proved that three railroads at minimum (NP, GN, ATSF) used the demonstrators in passenger service, and it is highly unlikely they would have done so without steam generators. We have one reliable source ("Encylopedia of North American Locomotives") stating flat out that the FT demonstrators in 1939-40 had steam generators and served on passenger trains during that time. To me this looks like it's a pretty clear cut case. They did have steam generators when used as demonstrators.

If you wi***o pass this issue along to a 'higher power' (maybe a letter to Model Railroader??) it would be fine with me. I'm sure they have access to quite a bit more data than the average railfan could imagine, and could come up with a definitive answer.

[rrandb]

[#ditto] Maybe Trains mag too. I'm good with that. Here is a link to clear shot of 103 pulling a passenger train on the ATSF on 3-9-1940. http://www.atsfrr.com/resources/funits/ftp2.htm The photo in the center of the page shows all 4 engines. Directly behind them is dyno car #20 which would travel with the103's. The GM support staffed buncked and worked out of this car. Since it also opperated with pure freight engines it would be equipped with it's own steam generator. This was so the staff would not freeze to death when freight engines could not supply steam line heat. I believe this may be the cause of much of the confusion. Its like todays mainline steam needing a HEP car when pulling passenger trains. In the photo there is no evidence of steam line pipes or pilot doors they would be behind. There are no water tanks. There are no visable steam generator vents. Here is a link to the same topic at Classic trains RGeorge posted about the same time as here. The answers speak for themselves as some of them were alive when these engines were made. Thank you and ENJOY. http://www.trains.com/community/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=51811

[SSW9389]

EMC/EMD used to rebuild their demonstrators for resale. Is it not likely that the FT demonstrator B units had their steam generators removed before sale to the Southern? I've seen the photos showing the boxy vents at the rear of the booster units. there is a photograph in Virgil Staff's D-Day on the Western Pacific showing the FT demos just west of Salt Lake City. You can clearly see three what appear to be vent pipes in front of the boxy vent. As to the point of not having the 1200 gallon tank I think the EMC booster demonstrators just might have had an internal water tanks. It was a demonstrator gosh sakes, let's try this out! Maybe they just ran a hose in there to fill it up? How's that for thinking inside the box of an FT booster?

[rrandb]

Lets try the math, say a1200 gallon tank is equal to 240 five gallon cans. Try to pictcure a pallet with 240 5 gallon paint buckets stacked on it. Lets say 5'w x 5'dx 8'h and you see that there is room for either water or SG, not both. Or look at the size or the water tank under a "B" unit that has one. They are big tanks thou not as big as the fuel tank. Another issue no one was has mentioned is that there is no documentation or photo's of the missing removable roof access panels required above the steam generators??? I know I way be preaching to the choir so please bear with me. Because of the load bearing construction of the walls/sides of GM's covered wagons on both 'F" and "E" all major items were installed and removed for major serviceing by lifting them through the roofs.They are mandatory to install or servicing a SG or motor and can not be mistaken. The FT103's did not have these above the "free" space in there "b" units either 103(b) or 103A(b) It is very clear on the FT's that were converted to SG opperation as they had steam lines front and back, water tanks (except ATSF), steam generators the large access panels to install/remove them. While GM made the FT's there owners "built" the steam generator eguipped ones. The other question no one has answered is why was ATSF (who placed the very first order for FT"s) unable to order there FT's with a SG. Why did they have to "convert" them and use the "B" unit's fuel tank for water instead of fuel?? GM was willing to design a special coupler for between the A&B units but not able to install an SG?? Think about it!!!! ENJOY

[rrandb]

QUOTE: Originally posted by wjstix

So much of what you just posted is wrong I don't know where to start !!

As I've documented, several sources say FT's could be ordered with steam generators from the start, and that in fact in 1940 ATSF and GN did just that. In 1941 both railroads rec'd FT's with steam generators in their B units. Maybe because of the war, no FT's were produced after that with SG's until ATSF 167 in 1945, I don't know.

http://www.greatnorthernempire.net/index2.htm?GNEGNDieselRosters.htm I double checked at the Great Northern Histrical society and GN recieved 1 set A/B/B/A of FT's befor the war stopped production. While they may have "ordered" FT's to be SG equiped they were never built. All FT's roostered by GN were freight. Starting with F3's they rostered passenger F's

QUOTE: The Diesel Era book notes that ATSF 167 carried water in tanks that would be almost impossible to distinguish from fuel tanks. Santa Fe also about that time added steam generators to some FT's to use on passenger trains. As I noted before, this might lead some people to believe that because Santa Fe added SG's to some FT's, that all FT's came without SG's - not true!!

Why didn't they just order the stock water tanks from GM? There were none to order

QUOTE: I mentioned the 1200 gallon internal tanks in an earlier post. If you don't believe my sources, fine, it's no use rehashing that. If you say FT's had to have the same water tanks as later F's fine, but it's still wrong.

I never said they had water tanks. I asked where did they put the1200 gallons of water.

QUOTE: GN used their first order of FT's (which came from the factory with SG's) in both freight and passenger service between Mpls-St.Paul and Duluth-Superior, although they were primarily used on freights. (I'm sure I have a pic of GN FT's pulling the Gopher or Badger into Duluth in 1944 or 1945 in a book somewhere but I can't right now find it.) ATSF also appears to have bought dual-purpose FT's as backups, as the Santa Fe didn't use FT's on their name trains (at least on a regular basis) until 1945 or so, and apparently (as you pointed out earlier) neither railroad bought FT's to use primarily as passenger units on name trains. This still doesn't mean they didn't have steam generators!!

GN had steam generator cars and could use them with the FT's. They were buit for there electified division.

QUOTE: your references to the Southern and the restored 103 (which is actually 103A) is irrelevant, I never said Southern 6100 had steam generators!! FT 103 came back to LaGrange in late 1940, and was there until sold to the Southern, repainted in GM's shops as Southern 6100 in mid-1941. I'm sure the Southern had no use for FT's with SG's as they already had plenty of E units around, so they didn't order the FT's with steam generators. I have to imagine the same factory that installed the SG's in the demonstrators could have removed them during the 7-8 months they were there.

Gm would have sold to a railroad that wanted SG eguipped engines as they would have to remove tanks, pilots, steamlines. Do think they patched the roof access as well?? Good theory but alot of work and no historical evidence

QUOTE: I doubt the 103 restored in 1989 was intended to haul steamheated heavyweight passenger cars, so apparently they didn't bother to put steam line connections in the pilot. So?? This doesn't prove they weren't there in 1940. I don't care what was in or on the engines in 1989 or 1959, only 1939!!

If I did not beleive this was true then I would try to help clear up what are common and published errors.

QUOTE: The stuff about the FP-7 is also both irrelevant and wrong. The point of the FP-7 and FP-9 A units is that they were made longer than the F-7 and F-9 A units to allow GM to place a LARGER boiler in the units than was available on a standard F unit. It certainly isn't true that ONLY FP's could be bought with steam generators. (Very few FP-7's and FP-9's were built - all the diesel powered trains that used F's couldn't all have been using FP's!!) See pg. 53 of "General Motors F-units" by Daniel Mulhearn and John Taibi.

What I said was, that after the intro of the FP series is that GM built no more "B" units with steam generators. There are no F7B(P)'s or F9B(P)'s. I never said only FP's were offered as SG models.

QUOTE: F3's and F7's could and were ordered with steam generators. F3's of the Monon, Santa Fe, Western Pacific (built specifically for the California Zephyr), CB&Q (Zephyr), GM&O, DRGW (California Zephyr) are all pictured in Mulhearn and Taibi's book in passenger service. In the caption of a DRGW set of F3's on a passenger train, they point out that "only the B units have steam generators". Not an FP-7 in sight, just phase III F3's !! F-7's with steam generators were at least as prevalent if not more so.

They were all built after the war. You could order what you wanted but GM could not build them. Why do think there is such a large gap in the build dates for there "E" units??? WWII

QUOTE: So...we've established that the demonstrator FT's had (in 1939-1940) steam lines (according to fiverings post) and steam boiler vents that are unmistakeable and were ONLY applied to units with steam generators. We have proved that three railroads at minimum (NP, GN, ATSF) used the demonstrators in passenger service, and it is highly unlikely they would have done so without steam generators. We have one reliable source ("Encylopedia of North American Locomotives") stating flat out that the FT demonstrators in 1939-40 had steam generators and served on passenger trains during that time. To me this looks like it's a pretty clear cut case. They did have steam generators when used as demonstrators.

dynocar

QUOTE: If you wi***o pass this issue along to a 'higher power' (maybe a letter to Model Railroader??) it would be fine with me. I'm sure they have access to quite a bit more data than the average railfan could imagine, and could come up with a definitive answer.

I will if you still want to.

[wjstix]

Sorry I apparently completely misunderstood what you were saying about the FP's.

My point about the ATSF is that they DID order these from GM with the boilers / water tanks. You had made the point that it was easy to see whether or not a unit had water tanks, I was pointing out that at least according to this source, "That the tanks beneath the B units carried water instead of diesel fuel would have been hard to see. The extra piping between the units for fuel and steam probably would have gone unnoticed. But whan the 167 flashed past with the 'Kansas Cityan' or the 'Super Chief', that would get your attention!" (pg.16, the Diesel Era book.)

I went back and re-watched the video "FT 103" dealing with the history and restoration of the FT 103. There is a still pic shown in there of some sort of ceremony where the re-painted FT demonstrators are being handed over to the Southern. Since these units did not have dynamic braking, their rooflines were very unencumbered, pretty smooth except for the approximately 18" x 18" x 48" steam boiler vent visible on the rear of the B unit in the picture. Since GM only applied this to FT's with steam generators, it appears the FT 103 set didn't have the boilers removed when turned over to the Southern, apparently the Southern later removed them. Unfortunately the video didn't mention steam generators one way or the other - I had hoped they would have a definitive answer!!

According to "GN Color Guide to Freight and Passenger Equipment", GN had two types of heater cars. The earliest were made from shortened baggage cars, they looked like a small (I would guess 50' at most) heavyweight baggage car. That is the kind they used as you say in the electrified areas in the west. The second type were made from F B units, but those weren't converted until the sixties.

I bring GN up because I found the pics I mentioned, they're in Pat Dorin's book "Great Northern Lines East (Second Edition)". On pg. 25 is a pic of an A-B set of GN FT's pulling a train with the caption "The 'Gopher' departs St.Paul powered by FT units with steam generators." He points out the train has 2 head-end cars, 3 coaches, and a parlor/lounge car. Both the baggage and RPO up front are clearly just that - neither are one of the western-style heater cars. He doesn't give a date, but none of the cars are in the green-and-orange postwar scheme. On the next page the text says that among the biggest GN passenger news in 1941 was "An air-conditioned parlor car was added as well as a two-unit FT diesel-electric locomotive."

On pg. 31, a 1944 Duluth Herald Tribune pic of essentially the same consist is shown arriving in Duluth, FT A-B units and heavyweight cars. Two baggage cars (of normal length) can easily be seen behind the FT set.

According to the text, the FT's would often take a passenger train to Duluth, then turn around and go back to Mpls/St.Paul that evening with a freight, and that during the war the FT's sometimes weren't always available for their passenger duties (due to priorities of moving freight during the war I assume), but I could find nothing saying these FT's were used in seasonal "summer only" service, and being from Minneapolis I find it hard to believe that GN would put an engine on a passenger train here without steam heat, and I can find no reference to them pulling one of their heater cars out of the electrified service to run behind the FT's.

On pg. 253 in the text he says "Many GN F3's and F7's, as well as some FT's (nos. 250 A,B and 251 A,B) were equipped with boilers for passenger service."

Now if we take the fact that GN FT's ran (without heater cars) on passenger trains in Minnesota and couple (sorry, pun intended) it to the "EMC's FT" book by Diesel Era (a railroad magazine devoted solely to the history and workings of diesel locomotives) which says in several places that GN ordered FT's from GM with steam generators...I think the most logical answer is that indeed that is what happened.

Now for FT-103 while demonstrating...Richard Green's book "The Northern Pacific Railway of McGee and Nixon" (a book of pictures taken by famed railroad photographers Warren McGee and Ron Nixon - who both were NP employees) breaks the pics down by engine types (4-8-4's, 4-6-6-4's, etc.) each with their own chapter. Chapter 10 "Passenger Diesels" starts on pg. 221, and the first two pics are Nixon pics of FT103 on the NP. The pic on pg. 222 shows 103 (the full ABBA set) pulling the North Coast Limited near Turah Montana on March 18, 1940. The caption lists the train's consist: "Immediately behind the diesel was Dynamometer Car No. 276, then four business cars full of brass hats, then the remainder of the regular NCL for a total of seventeen cars". The description looks dead-on, I can't see anything resembling a heater car, and pic shows snow on the hills behind the engine, so I would again assume that 103 has steam heat - again, clearly evidenced by the clear view of the vent on the B-units roof.

As far as where the SG was located in FT 103, and the water tank...I wish I could find a full schematic or diagram of the locomotive to know for sure. Of course, I think it's clear to assume the boiler itself is located directly under the boiler vent, in the rear of the B units. Which goes back to the point I made earlier about the FTSB's. You're right, the main reason they were able to shorten them was because these units used drawbars at both ends, therefore didn't need the 5' required for the normal coupler mounting. The point I was making was, the Diesel Era book said that GN was able to have GM create the FTSB was because they didn't need coupers at either end AND they didn't require boilers in these B units either. So I would assume a "normal" FTB without a steam generator would have had 5' of empty space in the rear basically just hanging out beyond the rear truck. The book makes it sound that both the boiler and water tank was somewhere in the back of the normal 'overhang' B unit. But as I quoted in the ATSF 167 reference, apparently the tanks under the B units could be built to carry water instead of fuel.

BTW - a quick quote from pg. 49 re Milwaukee FT sets: "For occasional passenger service, all the booster units were equipped with steam generators."

Anyway, here's how it looks to me...of course, GM designed the FT to be the first serious road freight engine, and almost all of the railroads that bought the FT did so to dieselize their freight trains. But the evidence seems clear that GM realized that in 1939 most railroads had yet to dieselize their passenger trains, and so included boilers (which they already offered in the E units, and would later offer in GP's and SD's as a standard option) in the FT 103 demonstrators so that it could be used in both frieght and passenger service, if for no other reason than to be an extra incentive to the potential buyers. (BTW the demonstrators were geared for a top speed of 75 MPH, and could re-geared to have a top speed over 100 MPH - which would lead me to believe GM thought it was at least possible that somebody might buy one for passenger service.)

In 1939-40 FT 103 pulled passenger trains on the GN, NP, and ATSF (and maybe others?) and was successful enough that GN, MILW and ATSF (and maybe others?) ordered and rec'd at least some FT's with steam generators, some as early as 1941.

After WW2, Santa Fe realized that E-units were not practical in the mountains, and ordered passenger F3's, but when it turned out they would have to wait a long time to get them due to the flood of orders to GM, ATSF themselves converted some of their existing FT's to passenger units, adding SG's, steam lines, and repainting them into the warbonnet scheme. As soon as the new F3's began to arrive, they began returning these FT's to freight service.

That's the way it looks to me. The clincher for me is the last point - the fact that ATSF added SG's to some of their FT's was unusual enough to mention in the FT book. I can't imagine (as thorough and careful as he is) that Patrick Dorin would make a mistake in his GN book and say that two sets of GN FT's had steam heat if they didn't, and more importantly, that if GN had only been able to acheive this by retrofitting them themselves, he would have said that. In fact, I have yet to find one reference of a railroad being forced to add steam generators to an FT unit because it wasn't an option from GM.

I know from my research that GM's F3 demonstrators from 1945 (which were really F2's) were essentially identical internally to the FT, except that the F3 was designed to use a newer more efficient generator (which wasn't available in 1945 and was about 2' longer than the FT...yet the F2/3 demonstrator set (and many subsequent F3's) came from GM with steam boilers and water tanks in place. I just can't believe - especially with so many references to FT's having steam generators (including a straightforward 'yes FT 103 had steam generators' from the encyclopedia I cited earlier) and with GM making steam generators and installing them in diesels since the early/mid 1930's, that they would have any reason NOT to put boilers in the FT demonstrators so that potential customers could try them in passenger service if they desired.

After all, the bottom line is GM didn't built FT 103 to prove in some clinical test that diesels could haul freight, they made FT 103 to get customers to order lots and lots of their new diesels so they could make more money !!

[rrandb]

GM/EMC already had a 4 axel passenger engine the TA built for Rock Island in 1937. http://www.northeast.railfan.net/images/tr_ri601.jpg This what a dedicated passenger engine built by them looks like. They were notorious for using as many parts as possible that are interchangible across line. You will see there are little simularities between these TA's and the FT's. Here are more views of EMD passenger models http://www.northeast.railfan.net/diesel99.html There is no documents or sales catologs to verify that they offered or sold as freight / passenger i.e. mixed frieght engines. Your info is very good. I in no way mean to impliy your info is wrong. Its just that GM did build the FT cocept to prove diesels could pull freight. While they had made some inroads in to the passenger market with the articulatedes and the TA/EA&B series the money was the in the freight market. No one had ever even suggested diesels could pull big time mainline freight. The ATSF was one of the first "E" customers. http://www.northeast.railfan.net/images/sf3.jpg This may explain why they placed the first order. It would be like saying that they forgot to order their's with the SG's installed so they could use them system wide. If it was a mixed use engine and was "demoed" with an SG they would need to order them "without" SG's Soon after arrival many roads did in fact convert there FT's to just that, a mixed use engine. I am quite certain GM would have made this adjustment too without the delay impossed by WWII. Remenber they were forced to suspend all producion and even developement of any railroad related work. P.S. I want to personelly thank you for your continued pactince with me.THANK YOU & as allways ENJOY [2c]

[Anonymous]

Kalmbach's "Our EMD Scrapbook" says af the FTs: "Options included dynamic braking and steam generators." (P.51.) The fact EMD offered passenger-only locomotives at the time doesn't rule out the fact that a locomotive principally intended for mainline freight service could also be fitted out for passenger service. The steam-generator option, as stated by the above-cited authoritative source, is pretty direct proof of the point under discussion. And so is the gearing: standard 75 mph gearing was perfectly suited to the North Coast Limited in the Rocky Mountains, and the optional 100 mph gearing for the FT would only have made sense for a passenger application.

The "Scrapbook", at p. 50 also has a builder's photo of the 103, dated 1939, which shows not only the steam-generator vent on the roofs of the B units, but roof-access hatches directly above the "overhang" portion of the carbody.

[rrandb]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:EMD_FT_demonstrator.jpg Here is another view ot the 103's with dyno car's stack from steam gen clearly visable. It is in front of and centered on second car? I am still looking for a nice overhead view to post. Be paitent, if we keep this up long enough bergie will settle it. P.S. thank you very much for all your good information ENJOY

[rrandb]

QUOTE: Originally posted by fiverings

Kalmbach's "Our EMD Scrapbook" says af the FTs: "Options included dynamic braking and steam generators." (P.51.) The fact EMD offered passenger-only locomotives at the time doesn't rule out the fact that a locomotive principally intended for mainline freight service could also be fitted out for passenger service. The steam-generator option, as stated by the above-cited authoritative source, is pretty direct proof of the point under discussion.

I have never claimed the GM didn't offer or take orders for SG equiped FT's. What I said was they never "built" any. The onset of hostilities forced them to stop production of "any" railroad engines. They cleared the floor and made the "567"'s for the navy as if our very lives depended on it They did this till allowed to resume production ot freight engines only. During the was the FT was inproved to the F2A/B. It would have been illegal to "build" or "install" SG's in the engines. Thats why all FT's with SG's were converted by the shops of there railroads. the ywere not builders and not under the same restrictions as GM. GM supported this but could do it. the "first" emd F-unit was a F3B(P)(SG) model. ENJOY

QUOTE: The "Scrapbook", at p. 50 also has a builder's photo of the 103, dated 1939, which shows not only the steam-generator vent on the roofs of the B units, but roof-access hatches directly above the "overhang" portion of the carbody.

http://images.google.com/images?q=emd+ft+103&hl=en&btnG=Search+Images Here is a nice page of FT's that show the paint scheme RGeorge asked about some where. The are some nice shots and detailed drawings for several different F's. Will post more soon. It is not to hard to understand why there is so much conflictiny info good luck and ENJOY [V] http://paintshop.railfan.net/images/moldover/e7b.html Here are some nice detaled drawings of EMD's steam gen's as installed in both E5 and E6 series passenger engines. They were built at the same time as FT 1030 & 1031. You can see quite clearlly that this not what you see on the roof of FT 103 . The box you see is not even in the access hatch. GM's SG has two large raised humps as tall as the exhaust stacks. nuff said. ENJOY

[wjstix]

According to the Diesel Era FT book, GM was forced to stop delivery of FT's because of shortages caused by the war shortly after delivering FT's to the B&O in Aug-Sept 1942 and "full production resumed in mid-1943" (Pg.8) GM was limited to only building road diesels during the war, like the FT. In fact, the book notes production picked up in 1944. Before the 1943 production break, they had already delivered FT's to (in order): SANTA FE, GREAT NORTHERN ("a pair of A-B sets with the B-units containing steam generators for passenger service", SOUTHERN, SANTA FE, GREAT NORTHERN (A-B-A sets with FTSB short boosters), MILWAUKEE, SANTA FE, D&RGW, SANTA FE, SOUTHERN, SEABOARD AIR LINE, finally B&O. All of these were locomotives ordered and delivered 1940-43.

All of the Milw B units had steam generators (pg. 49) as were the Seaboard's FT B's (pg. 101), and of course the first two GN A-B sets had steam generators also, as had FT 103-103A.

As was noted in the FT 103 video, the EA, E1, E2, and TA diesels were all 'one offs' single production runs for individual railroads. GM didn't come out with an "off the shelf" passenger engine until the E3 unit which came out just before GM started building the FT demonstrators.

This kinda helps - although unfortunately Burlington didn't use passenger FT's. Anyway, you'll notice a pretty large open area in the back of the B unit in this diagram. The steam generator went there, and the very large box-like vent for the steam boiler went right above it, towards the rear of the B unit's roofline. http://www.burlingtonroute.com/rosters/droster/ftread.htm

Well, and now I find a link to the original FT handbook that GM distributed to customers!![^]
http://www.rr-fallenflags.org/manual/ft-sec0.html

Notice that on this first page, in "General Data" it references "Steam Generator Water Capacity" = 1200 gals.

Let's see what we can see in the diagrams...in the back of the B unit drawing, I see in the rear a unit marked "steam generator". http://www.rr-fallenflags.org/manual/ft-3766.gif

And here's the section on the steam generator:
http://www.rr-fallenflags.org/manual/ft-sec2b.html
"The steam generator, located in the rear of each "B" unit, is used to supply steam to the trainline "

Well that seem pretty clear cut !! Yes, this manual is from 1944 so I suppose someone could argue it doesn't "prove" that earlier FT's had steam generators, but it does show where they were located and where the water tanks were etc. BTW notice the manual says it has updated info on dynamic brakes - if steam generators in FT's were something new, I think it would mention that upfront too.

Here's another reference (bottom of the FT section) to steam generators: http://www.hosam.com/model/emd.html

So, we have about a dozen books/refernences etc. from some of the top experts on RR history that say FT's could be ordered with steam generators, that they were ordered with steam generators, that they operated on passenger trains, and at least one source (Encyclopedia of North American Locomotives) that states flat out that the demonstrator FT's had steam generators. We also have numerous photos showing the FT 103 B units with the boiler vents only applied to B units with steam generators, and now we have GM's own FT manual which has diagrams showing where the generator was located, where the steam lines were located, and where the boiler water was stored.

Looks like "case closed" to me !![:D]

[Anonymous]

As to the "steam generator stack" on the dynamometer car and the business car . . . .

One would expect a dynamometer car and any business car to have its own, independent heating system. Not only were cars of this type expected to be carried in trains where they couldn't be supplied with heating steam from the locomotive, but they often were set out on sidings (while occupied, or at least where they wouldn't have their water systems drained -- with attendant concern of freezing in cold weather).

The stacks on the dyno and the business car could indicate the presence of an ordinary coal- or oil-fired stove or (more likely, especially in the business cars) a coal fired Baker or Vapor hot water heater.

The Baker heaters, which operated much like a hydronic, or hot water, heating system in a home, were used in railroad applications since the late 1860s. The Baker stoves heated water in a closed system, and the water (or low pressure steam) flowed by convection through the radiator pipes. However, and here's the important point, by the 1880s, the Baker stand-alone system was equipped so that it could be augmented by heat steam from a locomotive. This involved piping capable of withstanding higher pressures and trainline steam connections at the car ends. Don't take my word for this; google "baker heater" and see what you find.

Also, the Baker and Vapor systems installed in rolling stock were capable only of heating the individual car in which they were housed. They didn't produce sufficient steam flow or pressure to do more. A true "steam generator car" like those on GN required substantial storage capacity for the great amonts of water and fuel they consumed while heating a train. This is another reason a dynamometer car or business car couldn't serve as a steam heat car for a train.

So the sight of a stove stack on a dynamometer or business car does nothing to prove or disprove the existence of a steam generator on the locomotive to which it is coupled. It's as likely as not that the cars in question had Baker or similar systems which, at the time in question, would be expected to be coupled up to steam lines from the locomotive in cold weather climates.

[Eddystone]

Here is a link to Mid-Continent Railway Museum. They have and still use one of the Great Northern steam generator cars that were discussed, also has history on the car and pictures.

http://www.midcontinent.org/collectn/stlpas/gn90.html

[Anonymous]

Mid-Continent also has a car equipped with a working Vapor coal-fired heater. In the collection pages, click on C&NW combine #7409.

[rrandb]

http://www.burlingtonroute.com/rosters/droster/ftread.htm You are adsolutly correct sir ,wjstix , the FT's for the "Burlington" were not passenger eguipped. Thats why as stated in the article it says the only modification from the 103's as demonstrated was the addition of dynamic brakes??? Not the addition of DB and removal of the SG, 1200 gallon water tanks and steam lines??? [?] http://www.rr-fallenflags.org/manual/ft-sec0.html The manuels in these articles clearly states they are from 1944 by which time they were supplying parts and engineering help to all roads that were "converting" FT's for mixed traffic use. I would hope that this entire thread is not about GM's small SG for use in cold weather opperation. This was only for the engines themselves. They prevented all the water in both A&B unit from freezing when the engines were shut down for service or tied up. The water in the toilet,radiators, supply tanks, ETC. This small boxy vent located behind the last fan on the "b" unit is for this small steam heater. It may be possible to mistake it for GM's much larger passenger SG with two large vents. A spotting feature is it is not in the access panel where the passenger SG vents are dead center almost at the rear end. This heater was only for the FTA/B set which had a steam line between the A & B units. They could not be used between the two AB sets much less a passenger train. They were in the 103's buy should not be considered "steam generators" in the sense of passenger equipped. They are usually referred to as "water heaters". The fact they are called SG in GM writing has not helped this situation. Thank you again for the excelent postings and ENJOY [2c] http://www.hosam.com/model/emd.html This auther states a "few" FT's had "steam generators". He didn't say the FT's had steam generators from the begining but most were orded without them. ??? P.S. Do you find it strange there is so such conflicting info thats been published. P.P.S. If you look under the dyno car in the photo you will see the large tanks needed to supply its needs..

[SSW9389]

quote]Originally posted by wjstix

As was noted in the FT 103 video, the EA, E1, E2, and TA diesels were all 'one offs' single production runs for individual railroads. GM didn't come out with an "off the shelf" passenger engine until the E3 unit which came out just before GM started building the FT demonstrators.

[SSW9389]

Your Diesel Error FT book missed the production gap by about five months. Santa Fe 113LABC-118LABC were delivered between October 1942 and February 1943. FT production resumed in May 1943 with the Santa Fe 119LABC and the Rio Grande 543 set. Santa Fe production confirmed in Early Diesel Daze and both at http://community-2.webtv.net/ajkristopans/FREIGHTCABUNITS/index.html [8D]

QUOTE: Originally posted by wjstix

According to the Diesel Era FT book, GM was forced to stop delivery of FT's because of shortages caused by the war shortly after delivering FT's to the B&O in Aug-Sept 1942 and "full production resumed in mid-1943" (Pg.8) GM was limited to only building road diesels during the war, like the FT. In fact, the book notes production picked up in 1944. Before the 1943 production break, they had already delivered FT's to (in order): SANTA FE, GREAT NORTHERN ("a pair of A-B sets with the B-units containing steam generators for passenger service", SOUTHERN, SANTA FE, GREAT NORTHERN (A-B-A sets with FTSB short boosters), MILWAUKEE, SANTA FE, D&RGW, SANTA FE, SOUTHERN, SEABOARD AIR LINE, finally B&O. All of these were locomotives ordered and delivered 1940-43.

[rrandb]

During WWII virtually all railroads suffered an extreme shortage of both passenger and freight locos both steam and diesel. There is an interuption of " as built dates" at least 2 years long between the E6 & E7 models. Odd because the RR's were desperate for motive power. The gap in FT production is a least one and a half years. As posted earlier all production of both GM and even F-M ( Fiarbanks-Morris ) production of railroad type diesels were "hyjacked" for use in US Navy submarines. This is why GM was not allowed to build all the AT&SF FT's as one steady order. There is a break in the delivery dates and the "as built dates". Why would AT&SF, which was one of GM's earliest customers of there pre-"E" and "E" type passenger engines not just have EMD build there FTB units with the "standard" steam generators. Historical facts do not explain why only one set in the middle of production numbers and dates was "built" with SG's but the railroad had to "convert the others. Thanks again fof everyones hard work and marvelous post with links. I bet not even TRAINS or MR could not answer these questions with so many good links. Here is the link (previously posted) build dates showing the break in "as built dates" for "E" type engines. http://community-2.webtv.net/ajkristopans/PASSENGERUNITS/index.html There is a simular break in the Freight data only shorter with resumtion of FT's allowed by war production board. As always HAPPY modeling and please ENJOY. [bow]

[pkeppers]

From NP Diesel Era:

On March 18, 1940, the NP assigned No. 103 to the North Coast Limited between Livingston and Missoula. Since the locomotive was equipped with a steam generator, it could be operated in passenger service. The normal westbound schedule allowed six hours and 30 minutes for the 250-mile run; the eastbound schedule was eight minutes longer. Although the run was usually assigned to an A-class 4-8-4, a Z-6 4-6-6-4 could handle the normal consist of ten cars by itself over the entire stretch, and it could handle 12 cars with the assistance of a helper on the most difficult grades – but it could seldom do either in the advertised time. Class A 4-8-4’s required helpers at numerous points. In contrast, No. 103 took a 17-car train west in six hours and 19 minutes, making up 23 minutes between Livingston and Butte. It immediately returned east with another 17-car train in six hours and 24 minutes. It did not require a helper at any point on the westbound or eastbound run and it had 13 minutes to “kill” as it climbed the Continental Divide! On the westbound trip the engineer who took over the train was given the following instructions, “Open the throttle to position Number 1, wait ten seconds, go to Number 2, wait 20 seconds and then go to Number 3, wait ten seconds and if the train does not move shut off all power and go find out what the train is ties to!”


Phil Keppers

[RGeorge]

Sincerely appreciate all the scholarly discussion on the topic, but did not anticipate the ensuing controversy. Perhaps we should turn to politics and religion.

In summary, it seems that the jury remains out on the steam generator question. As final surmations, any smoking-gun that 103 had a steam boiler?

Again many thanks and Happy New Year,

RGeorge

[rrandb]

QUOTE: Originally posted by RGeorge

Sincerely appreciate all the scholarly discussion on the topic, but did not anticipate the ensuing controversy. Perhaps we should turn to politics and religion.

In summary, it seems that the jury remains out on the steam generator question. As final surmations, any smoking-gun that 103 had a steam boiler?

Again many thanks and Happy New Year,

RGeorge

[#ditto] I must admit i was unaware of the potential for the heated debate that followed my answer to you. It appears this subject way be up there with both religion and politics. Some peoples feelings are very strong to this day about all EMC/GM-EMD products especially the early ones. The politics of the mystery is also apparrent from the number of published contridictions that have been posted. I want to thank everyone who took the time, effort and initiative to participate. I will try to get letters off to Trains & MR so we may have one more opinion. The answer is there is no clear answer, but MAYBE??? thank you and ENJOY P.S. This thread was # 1 for a google seach for this question out of 100000's of answers.

[rrandb]

the question I propose to submit is "Did GM build the FT103's with a passenger style steam generator? If so was it steamline equipped for passenger service and what was the water capacity? If not how did they heat the dynomometer car and bunk cars for support staff. What was the vent behind the last set of radiators used for near the coupler end if not for a steam generator? Any and all replies would be welcomed. as always ENJOY

[SSW9389]

About twenty years ago I went to an NMRA show in Flagstaff. Giving a talk that day about helping out with the 103 Demonstrator tour was a guy named Ed Ravenscroft. He had photos of this time and we all had a good time listening to Ed's stories. Wish I had a time machine.

Anybody have contact with Wally Abbey? He might be one who could contribute to this quest for knowledge.