FT Demonstrators On Passenger Trains?

[wjstix]

RGeorge - just to be clear, the jury isn't out on this one. No one has yet been able to cite a source saying that FT 103 did not have steam generators, or that FT's could not be ordered with steam generators. However, there are numerous references in very scholarly authoritative sources that say FT 103 had steam generators, had steam lines, had a vent on the B unit that every source that refers to it says it was a vent only ever used as the vent for a steam generator, several books noting railroads ordering and receiving FT's with steam generators, books and articles showing FT's being used (in winter) on passenger trains where there are clearly no "heater cars" or other sources for heat , and finally THE GENERAL MOTORS FT OWNER'S MANUAL which shows where the water tanks and boiler of the steam generator were located, where the steam lines (NOT lines to heat the engine) were located.

Against this, I have yet to see one book where anyone says flat out "FT's didn't have steam generators" or "XYZ railroad wanted passenger FT's, but GM didn't make them." etc. Yes ATSF needed passenger diesels in 1945 and added steam generators to their freight FT's - so what?? This doesn't disprove the fact that ATSF and GN had earlier bought FT's with steam generators.

On just the GN, we have a two books saying GN ordered and rec'd FT's with SG's in 1941. We have a book showing GN FT's hauling the Gopher passenger train (with heavyweight equipment and NO HEATER CAR) during WW2, we have a book (Northwest Rail Pictorial by Warren Wing) showing FT A-B set hauling the Empire Builder (NO HEATER CAR) and then we have the GM diagram showing where the generators were located.

I understand there are people who continue to believe the Apollo moon landings were faked, and that the world is really flat, and that the pyramids of Egypt were built by space aliens. No matter how much evidence you show them, they will come out with something to refute it. Eventually the only thing you can do is give up and let them believe what they want.

[Anonymous]

I'm with wjstix once again. We have a mountain of mountain of circumstantial, but persuasive, evidence as against a "belief" that the engine in question "couldn't have had" a certain attribute.

The comparison to arguments about religion and politics is apt. But that doesn't mean we should skulk away from a good inquiry, even if the subject is esoteric.

[RGeorge]

Again, very much appreciate the wealth of information on this matter, and a special thanks to wjstix for the compelling evidence on the steam generator issue. I have re-reviewed the material presented and I, too, am convinced the Demonstrator had a boiler.

Without dispute, FT 103 pulled passenger trains during its tour, we have photos -- and none of them include The Lock Ness Monster, calling into question the authenticity. My initial query has been answered.

I'd love to model FT 103 in passenger service. Can anyone provide photos and or detailed data on the actual consist of the passenger trains known to have been pulled by FT 103? (I have the photo of FT 103 on the Santa Fe but no data on this train's consist.)

Thanks.

RGeorge

PS - Now where am I going to find a dynamometer car in N scale?

[rrandb]

QUOTE: Originally posted by fiverings

I'm with wjstix once again. We have a mountain of mountain of circumstantial, but persuasive, evidence as against a "belief" that the engine in question "couldn't have had" a certain attribute.

The comparison to arguments about religion and politics is apt. But that doesn't mean we should skulk away from a good inquiry, even if the subject is esoteric.

I have never suggest that you should do anything but stand your ground. You arguments are compelling enough that I am forced by my own curiosity to submit the question to both Trains & MR mags, as well as the archivist at the current EMD corperation to see if any historical documents are available that have not yet been made public or previosly been published. I have also contacted the museum where 1031A resides today to see if there historian can provide more facts. We are not the first to debate this issue and may not be the last. I am not attempting to rewrite history mearly confirm it. RGeorge you should model anything you want to. That's the beauty of model trains and the whole hobby of model railroading. I personely will wait to here from someone who actually "knows the facts" before my "FTB's" are modified to have passenger type steam lines as built! Its obvious from the many photo's the A's do not.. {2c]

[wjstix]

Possibly the best guy to try to contact at (or through) Kalmbach would be Bob Hayden, I believe he compiled the "Model Railroader Cyclopedia Vol.2 : Diesels" back in the seventies or eighties. I think we could all agree this is an 'authoritative source' of locomotive info?? [:)]

However, I would point out again, it appears that this issue is already settled...clearly FT103 and some subsequent production FT's had steam generators. Much evidence has been forward to show this, ranging from flat out statements in authoritative books that it did have steam generators, to diagrams showing where it was located in the engine, to photographs showing FT's that are listed as having steam generators having the steam boiler vent on the B unit roof, and FT's listed as not having steam generators not having the vents. Plus so far no one yet has produced one source saying FT 103 didn't have steam generators, only that it 'couldn't have steam generators because'...because there wasn't enough room in the B unit for it, or for the water tanks, or that there were no such thing as water tanks, or that if there was room, it had to have been retrofitted, then that GM did put steam generators in, but it wasn't really a steam generator for the passenger cars etc., all of which has been disproved.

RGeorge - I think in an earlier post I quoted one of the NP people who was there as saying when FT 103 pulled the NCL it had a dynamometer car, four coaches of NP brass, then the 'regular North Coast Limited' which I don't have a car by car breakdown for, but appeared in the pic to add maybe another 8-10 cars. On the GN FT 103 worked freight and passenger trains between Mpls/St.Paul and Duluth/Superior, which would mean the GN Gopher and Badger passenger trains, which were usually 5-6 cars - a baggage car, 3 coaches and I think a parlor/observation car (all heavyweights). GN had the mail contract between these cities so sometimes an RPO or mail storage baggage car was added . BTW this was the same service the GN steam generator equipped FT's were assigned to when they purchased from EMD in 1941.

[rrandb]

Well then am I to assume that we have successfully rewriten history here. If your minds are pleased with the results of you own indepth study based on a mountain of "circumstantial" evidence and "beleifs" I will do nothing to disuade you any further. I personelly am disturbed by certain "facts" that do not stand up to closer scrutiny. All the "F" models opperated on GN were rostered and charged to there Freight dept. untill the arrival of there F3's that were equipped with passenger type steam generators (PSG). These were rostered as passenger engines and arrived after the war. http://www.greatnorthernempire.net/index2.htm?GNEGNDieselRosters.htm The real mistery is why ATSF who had ordered some of the very first EMC passenger engines, i.e. both the early box style AB sets and the E series, would ask for the very first order be built without the "standard and as demonstrated" PSG's installed or there 1200 gallon water tank's only to have to soon thereafter install them and convert the fuel tanks to water tanks.??? http://www.rr-fallenflags.org/manual/ft-sec2a.html As your before mentioned post and link (1944) operator manuel stated GM has allways offered from its first diesel a low pressure i.e. 50 psi stand buy steam generator / water heater. This vent might be either mistaken or confused with its much larger cousin the PSG whitch has two large bulges directly above the access plate. Thats not where the vent is on the FT103'sB-B units. http://www.northeast.railfan.net/images/tr_rdg900.jpg the bigest thing that I am unable to find in your "mountian" of evidence is how you connect this generator to the passenger cars.?? Here is a clear photo of the size and location of a trainline steamline (TLSL) installed on a later "F". The location will be the same on any PSG eguipped engine. Where is this "link" on either GM1030 or GM1031/103A/ as restored103. http://www.northeast.railfan.net/images/emd103b.jpg There are no photo's of the FT103 having aTLSL or the reguired access panel to store it behind. http://www.atsfrr.com/resources/funits/ftp2.htm Here in the middle of the page is a clear view of the piolot on 103 an no TLSL access door. On all other SG equipped engines it is quite obvious. I have yet to here you even address the issue of connecting the steam to the cars?? I have posted this same question on several other forums and so far its 4 to1 against FT's with PSG 's from LaGrange. I will wait to hear from higher powers. As always ENJOY

[wjstix]

You start with an ironic statement...I have cited numerous instances of recorded history saying I'm right, you have presented zero hard evidence of your argument, yet you cling to the belief you are right and insist everyone who has ever written on the subject is "rewriting history". Otherwise, your arguments below are just the same old same old again. "If ABC railroads F7's had this panel or connection or whatever here, and this FT didn't, then the FT didn't have steam lines". But once again I'll answer them anyway.

GN - Again, your point is irrelevant. I'm a member of the GNRHS and I appreciate the work they did on this roster. Yes they listed all the FT's as freight locomotives. (FWIW, as I noted earlier, the book "The Northern Pacific Railway of McGee and Nixon" lists the NP's FT's as freight engines, but FT 103 is the first diesel pictured in the section on passenger diesels.) I've cited two extremely reliable sources (the Diesel Era book and Pat Dorin's "Great Northern Lines East") saying that GN ordered and rec'd two A-B sets of steam generator equipped FT's in 1941 for dual service use. The GNRHS roster doesn't include a listing for "dual service" use, and since even the steam equipped FT's spent most of their lives hauling freight, listing them as freight units is fine. The fact that is nowhere in their website does the GNRHS say that no GN FT's had steam generators, only that FT's were primarily freight engines. Yet we know from photo's and text I've noted that the 1941 FT's were used by GN Gopher and Badger during WW2, and at least once later to pull the Empire Builder.

Bottom line: Several sources say GN had FT's with SG's, so far you have produced zero sources saying they did not. So given all available evidence, they did have SG's.

ATSF: Your problem here is you keep pretending I said ALL FT's had steam generators. What I cited were several sources showing that ATSF like GN ordered and rec'd a couple of sets of FT's with steam generators in 1941. Like GN, the vast majority of ATSF FT's did not have steam generators as delivered. However, four years or so later, ATSF found that it's E-units were having trouble in the mountains, and ordered passenger F3's to replace the E-units. GM was unable to deliver the F3's right away, so ATSF took some of their freight FT's, converted them to passenger units and repainted them from blue and yellow to the red and silver "warbonnet". As the F3's came in, the FT's were moved back to freight service, and after 1950 it was very rare to see an ATSF FT in passenger service. It is fairly easy to find pics of FT's in each stage (freight to passenger to freight paint schemes).

Bottom Line: We have several sources (Diesel Era FT book especially) saying in text and numerous pics that ATSF FT's were used passenger service in the 40's and that they had steam generators. It is clear ATSF added SG's to many FT's that they had bought as freight units without SG's in the mid-forties. You have yet to show any documentation that ATSF was unable to buy FT's with SG's, or to refute the documentation showing that some of the 1941 ATSF FT's had steam generators. So the fact that in 1945-6 they elected to take freight FT's they already owned and convert some of them to passenger service really does nothing to prove that none of the 1941 FT's didn't have SG's. So again, given all available data, the sources stating ATSF bought some FT's with SG's from GM are correct.

Steam lines: If you go through the 1944 EMD manual for FT's, it has clearly labelled "steam lines" going to the front and rear of the A-B sets, and they come out exactly where they are supposed to be. It's funny that pictures showing the steam boiler vent seem to you to be unclear and unreliable, but somehow pictures of the pilot are so clear and precise that you can tell that there is no connection there for steam lines...of course you're usually citing pictures taken decades after FT 103 made it's demonstration run, or on later F units. FT's are not the same as F7's in many ways, expecting their steam boiler vents or steam lines etc. to be identical is not a valid assumption, and stating that the because an F7 has this or that and the FT didn't, therefore the FT didn't have steam lines or generators or whatever.

Bottom line: We have seen that FT's with steam generators had a large vent on their B unit's roofs that is unmistakeable. This vent appears on the rear of B units who have been referred to in several sources as being delievered with steam generators. So far, no pics have been found of FT's having this vent and not having had SG's. We also have pics and text showing that FT 103 pulling passenger trains in the northern US in winter. No where in the pics is there evidence of a heater car or other source of steam heat for the cars, nor is there any text yet put forward saying that the FT's had to pull a heater car or other item to provide heat to their passenger consists. As I pointed out in an earlier posting, some of the pics of FT 103 show some piping/hoses coming out thru the pilot coupler opening on the engineer's side. Possibly these were the steam lines, and later F's had a separate panel as you describe??

Bottom Line: Unlike the other two points (GN and ATSF) this certainly is more circumstantial, but I still don't see that your points change anything?? You have yet to cite a source saying that the FT's 'steam boiler vents' are something else, or were used on FT's that didn't have steam generators. The FT manual from EMD shows the steam lines and where they exited the FT A and B units, the steam line going to the pilot exits the pilots precisely where you have stated the steamline connector should be. I would say until some hard evidence is produced saying that FT 103 did not have steam lines, we could safely assume (given evidence of the steam generators and steam lines) that it did.
______________________________________________________

So...the problem remains that I am citing evidence and you are offering opinions - and when I use facts to refute one of your objections, you change the objection or simply say that Diesel Era or Kalmbach or whoever is wrong.

You argued early on that FT 103 couldn't have a steam generator because there was no room for it. I produced a reliable source stating the SG was in a five foot space in the rear overhang of the B unit. You replied that I was wrong, that the B unit was stuffed to the gills with the motor, relay boxes, etc. So I produced documentation that this otherwise open area did exist, and even a diagram showing that area.

Then you said, well later F's had a water tank under the body, and FT's didn't, so no water = no steam generator. I quoted a reliable source noting the FT B units carried 1200 gals. of water inside them. When you said I made this up, I produced the GM FT owner's manual diagramming exactly where the two 600 gal. tanks were, how they were connected to the SG, and how the SG was connected to the steam lines.

When I referenced the GM 1941 FT's hauling passenger trains, you stated they did this with GM 'heater cars' attached. Yet you produced no picture or text showing that this ever happened. When I noted several pics of FT 103 hauling the North Coast Limited thru Montana in March 1940 with snow visible, you said the Dynamometer car behind the engines had some sort of hidden secret steam generator in it (!!) This was of course was ridiculous grasping at straws.

Then presented with the FT owner's manual, you argued that well, yes of course, FT's had steam generators, but these were just 'little' SG's for heating the FT's themselves and couldn't be used for steam lines to the passenger cars. Again I referred you back to the EMD owner's manual which stated that the steam generators were used to provide steam to the "steam lines", and noted other sources showing that the 1200 gal. water supply and SG was the normal EMD arrangement for all passenger diesels until the 2000 gal. FP series came along later.

Then you said GM put the steam generator and water tank information in the FT owner's manual because they were selling retrofit kits and wanted to show the railroads where to install these things. Yet you are unable to show anyplace in the manual where it says that. That chapter was entitled "Steam Generator" not "Steam Generator Retrofit Kit". I'm sure you could buy SG's from GM to install in FT's - and that is what ATSF did. But there's no reference to that in the manual, leading to the inevitable conclusion that they were treating like any other factory option, like dynamic braking.

For a while your argument was that OK, GN and ATSF and whoever ORDERED these engines, but they were never produced because of the war. Again I (and others) showed this was incorrect. These two roads rec'd their SG equipped FT's in 1941, long before FT production was interrupted.

With all the stuff you've posted, you have yet to cite a book on GM or ATSF or GN history that states something like "Sante Fe really wanted passenger FT's in 1941, but GM refused to build FT's with steam generators, so ATSF bought freight F's and converted them themselves" or "GN had to stop using FT's on their Minneapolis-Duluth passenger trains when winter came in 1942 because they lacked steam generator capabiltity" or "Many North Coast Limited passengers complained of bitter cold thru the Montana mountains when FT 103 pulled the NP's premier in March 1940, since the engines lacked steamlines".

I'm sure some people on other forums with some knowledge of RR history think as you do that because GM designed the FT as a freight road engine, they wouldn't make steam generators an option. Yet if they bothered to look at the evidence they would see that GM did...and you know, the question yet to be answered is: Why WOULDN'T GM put steam generators in FT's for a customer?? GM put steam generators in GP and SD engines, and about the same time as FT 103 was touring the country, even put SG's in what were essentially elongated switchers for GN. Why did they allow railroads to test FT's on passenger trains (in winter) with no way for the engine to provide steam heat to the cars which were full of passengers?? And why were GM's "freight only" FT 103 set up to have a top speed of 75 MPH - and have gearing ratio's available for FT's to be set up to run at over 100 MPH??

It's fine with me if you write or e-mail someone at EMD or Trains or MR or whoever. Unfortunately, I fear that even if GM or Kalmbach or whoever says you are wrong, you will just do as you have done here and claim the evidence is wrong, and dismiss the source as unreliable or confused, and claim these men who have dedicated much of their life to writing and researching on railroad history are simply "rewriting history" for their own ends.

[passengerfan]

On page 94 of Early Diesel Daze is a picture of the four unit 103 demonstrator and the B-units both appear to have the divided fuel tanks one for water the other for diesel. and it certainly looks like an exhaust for a steam generator on the roof of the one B unit trailing 103A. It does not mention if the units were tested in passenger service on the Santa Fe.
In the same book it states that the 167LABC FT diesel set was delivered for passenger service with steam generators in the B units in February 1945. Steam generators in the B units only of Santa Fe F-units was the norm for that railroad while other railroads that purchased F-Units for passenger service both the A and B units received steam generators.

The NP installed their own steam generators in the postwar EMD F-3 A-B-B sets purchased for the North Coast Limited. They continued this practice through the F9s assigned to passenger service. An interesting note on the NP North Coast Limited is that the first car behind the diesels was a water baggage car that supplied water to the diesels steam generators.The main reason for this is it gave the NCL the range to pass through bad water districts without stopping for boiler water and hauling same into these bad water districts of eastern Montana and western North Dakota to supply the train heat boilers of the passenger trains.

[rrandb]

As a member of the GNRHS you may know why they would roster all FT's as freight when the initial order were fitted with PSG and TLSL. Yet as soon as F3's arrived 45 were rostered as passenger and 33 were rostered as freight. The same holds true for the F7's they are rostered seperatly as either freight or passenger. Why were the earlier FT' with SG's never rostered as passenger eguipped. As you posted earlier none of the Burlington's FT's were equiped for passenger service yet the "only" modification was the addition of dynamic brakes as compared to the FT103 "demonstrators. Yet they were never used on the CB&Q with varnish as delivered. I never said GM wouldn't put steam generators when reguested by a customer. What I said was GM did not put passenger type steam generators in the FT103 demonstrators. If they had it would have been built with a passenger style plow with access to a trianline steamline conection. The flexable second rubber hose on the pilot is not a TLSL. They are hard metal, high presure conections and pivot on swivel connectors. If you ever connected passenger equipment you would remember them. You claim that PSG's were standard eguipment as built on the FT103's. Yet on 20 seperate roads in the course of 11 months and 83,764 miles they only pulled varnish on only 2 roads and only once both ways. This was about 2% of there time on the rails. I will be makeing at trip to St Louis next weekend to inspect GM builders #1031/FT103A to look for any evidence of these phatom passenger style steam lines conections that GM supposidly removed before delivering it to the "Southern" railroads susidiary. May be there historian can clear up my obvious confusion about how you can have a locomotive with a passenger type steam generator and no way to conect it to your passenger train. No where can you quote that ATSF who was one of GM's strongest passenger customers asked that there FT' be built without the standard PSG as they were demonstrated to them. The strandest thing is you claim the lack of a TLSL on the gm1031/ft103 as restored has somehow been altered to hide any evidence it was a mixed use engine. Why would GM who pioneered the concept of interchangable parts have built a unique SG vent just for the FT's. It's not the same as any other PSG they used before or after? If the ST. Louis Transportation Museum tells me there GM1031/FT103A/103 was a passenger equipped or even mixed use engine I WILL BELEIVE!!! Till then as always ENJOY [2c]

[Eddystone]

I have to disagree with flexible hose not being used for train heat steam line. In fact the Wilmington and Western use it on their cars in the winter and remove them in the summer and I have seen pictures of many cars with flexible rubber steam line connnections. As for the front pilot pictures linked to in this tread of the 103A there is a connection on the opposite side of the coupler that looks like it has a pipe plug in it that could be the steam line connection for a flexible rubber line.

I am not saying this next sentence for a fact but mabey they removed the steam line when not in use for appearance and so it would'nt mess up the paint on the pilot as it bounced around, after all they were demonstrators at the time and had to look good as well as perform many tasks good.

[Anonymous]

rrandb's argument about the pilots presumes that only a metal rotary joint steam fitting could have been used for the trainline. This isn't so. Flexible steam hoses have been used in industrial, railroad and marine applications for decades. Such lines were used on the 103 (as previously shown), on Milwaukee Road's FT#40, delivered in 1941 (see photo on p. 49 of the April 1975 MR), and on B&O's EA and its early E6s. None of these locomotives had access doors in their pilots for Barco rotary-joint fittings when delivered, but they sure were equipped with steam generators for train heating purposes.

The steam hoses and fittings were removable, not just for aesthetic reasons, but to prevent damage which might occur to them if left in place on a leading unit.

[wjstix]

Passengerfan: That was interesting about the steam baggage car on the NP, thanks!! Do you know if they were in the NCL consist the whole way across the NP, or were they cut into the consist just to go across North Dakota and Montana??

BTW the book from Diesel Era on the FT history does show a pic of the FT 103 on Santa Fe's "California Limited" passenger train. I think someone else said they had seen this pic in another book but I can't remember which one.

Thanks all for the posts about the steam lines / pilots. Apparently rrandb's argument now is that GM would have used a passenger pilot on FT's with steam lines, and since they didn't produce any FT's with passenger pilots, they couldn't have had steam lines in any FT's. I think it's clear many roads that had passenger units that didn't have that type of coupler / pilot set-up. ATSF used many FT's in passenger service in the mid-40's and I have yet to see any with that style of pilot, yet they had steam generators.

I think he is also confusing the Great Northern Ry Historical Society's roster of GN's locomotives with some sort of "official" GN document or roster or something?? It clearly isn't. As far as the FT's being listed as "freight" engines on the GNRHS webpage - I guess I don't get the point?? The same roster lists GM NW-3's and NW-5's as "road switchers", yet we know these were built by GM with steam generators and were often used in local passenger train service. So that fact that the two A-B sets of FT's with steam generators that GN bought in 1941 is lumped in with all the other FT's as "freight" engines is proof of nothing - saying that 'these FT's couldn't have had steam generators, because this roster doesn't say whether they had them or not' isn't much of an argument. GN bought these for use between Mpls-St.Paul and Duluth-Superior; one A/B set would pull a passenger train during the day say from Mpls. to Duluth, then return to Minneapolis that night with a freight. (Too bad the GNRHS roster doesn't have a listing for "dual purpose" engines.) BTW this was the same use that GN had put the separated A-B FT 103 and 103A to when testing them in 1940.

I'll put more stock in the writing of Pat Dorin, a former GN employee and long time railroad historian and author with a PhD degree, who states clearly in "Great Northern Lines East" that GN bought two A-B sets of FT's in 1941 with steam generators (which is confirmed in the Diesel Era book) and shows two pictures of these FT's pulling GN passenger trains in Minnesota during WW2.

Plus yet again, he is pretending too that I said somewhere that ALL FT's had to have steam generators !! This is really getting old. A "demonstrator" engine is an engine built to 'demonstrate' to potential customers the things your engine can do for them. Did I say FT 103 had steam generators in it's B units?? Yes, because all the evidence shows they did. GM did this to show it's customers that they could use the FT's for freight or passenger service - like the railroads were doing then using 4-8-2 and 4-8-4 steam engines in both passenger and freight service.

Now, did I say that steam generators were a required item or a "standard item" or anything similar?? No. I said it was clearly an OPTION that customers could order from GM when they ordered FT's. Santa Fe and Great Northern did order (and rec'd) some of their FT sets with steam generators, and all of the Milwaukee Road FT B units had steam generators "for occasional passenger service". (Diesel Era FT book, pg. 49.) Were FT's designed as passenger engines?? No. Did all FT's have steam generators?? No. Could a railroad order FT's with steam generators?? YES!!

(Geez, you could buy an RS-1 from ALCO with steam generators, that doesn't mean ALCO designed them to be passenger engines and that they couldn't be used for anything else !! ) [:D]

As far as the Burlington, one of rrandb's earlier arguments was that FT's could not be built with steam generators because they had no place to put them. I found online a diagram of a CB&Q FT B unit showing a five foot long space at the rear of the unit. I pointed out that, except for having dynamic braking, the FT's they bought were pretty much standard FT's...i.e., the Burlington didn't just decide to order units with an additional 5 ft. overhang in the rear of the B unit because they thought it looked nice or something. This showed that there was room in the B unit for a steam generator IF the Burlington had wanted GM to put one there. (Of course later now he says that GM did offer SG's as an option, but he can prove no one bought any because the pilots don't look right.)[%-)]

O well...I still think it's interesting in an earlier post that he claims I / we are 're-writing history' when he has produced no history to rewrite. "History" means the written story of mankind...yet he can produce nothing to back up his argument except his interpretation and opinions.

I mean, if the FT 103 demonstrators didn't have steam generators, why can' t he produce one book on the subject that says that?? If these FT's were used in passenger service in cold-weather states (and they were, on NP in Montana and GN in Minnesota) without steam generators to heat the cars they were hauling, I would think he would be able to produce at least one reference in a book that states that. If NP used the FT set on the North Coast Limited without any way to provide heat the passengers across Montana in March 1940, there would be a lot of references to passengers complaining of the cold, or becoming ill, or something?? Why isn't there one book showing GN FT's hauling the Gopher or Badger into Duluth MN with a steam heater car (borrowed from the electrified lines 1000 miles away) or stating that these FT's couldn't pull GN passenger trains in the winter, due to their lack of passenger steam lines and heat??

Probably because such evidence does not exist. Of course I know every statement I produce from a reputable book is met with the answer that 'books can be wrong', so it doesn't do any good to keep citing them. [X-)][banghead][soapbox]

O well I tried anyway, I guess not much else I can do !! [;)]

[passengerfan]

Just a quick answer to the question about the water baggage cars operated by the NP they operated through between St. Paul and Seattle on both the North Coast Limited and Mainstreeter. All were streamlined and additional cars were added to the water baggage inventory from time to time.
The first six were delivered in 1947 numbers 400 - 405.
TRhe remaining six were were converted from other streamlined 200 series baggage car as follows:
406 Oct, 1962 ex Baggage 208
407 Oct, 1962 ex Baggage 209
408 Oct, 1965 ex Baggage 210
409 Nov, 1965 ex Baggage 218
410 Sept, 1966 ex Baggage 211
411 Mar, 1967 ex Baggage 222

Their were several heavyweight baggage cars also equipped with water tanks and these operated initially in the Mainstreeter although some sources state that the Mainstreeter never required the Water Baggage cars as the consists were short enough that it did not put that much strain on the steam Generator water capacity. It is believed that the A-B-A sets of NP F-7s wyhen pulling the Mainstreeter only used one steam geneartor in summer and two in winter and utilzed the water from the tanks in the unused steam generator equipped units. The NCL on the other hand used all three steam generators year round and required the services of the water baggage cars all twelve months. The NP never used factory installed steam generators on any of their F units but instead chose to install their own before they entered passenger service. One of the few Railroads I have been able to find who did install their own steam generators.

[wjstix]

Very interesting, thanks !! The NCL is one of the trains on my "someday" list to model, this would be an interesting facet of it to model. [:)]

[passengerfan]

This should settle the question of the 103 FT demonstrator set being equipped with srteam generator once and for all. In the book Northern Pacific Diesel Era 1945-1970 by Lorenz P. Schrenk and Robert L. Frey published by Golden West Books in October 1988 on page 57 i quote" The green and yellow EMC No 103 operated in both freight and passenger service on the Yellowstone and Rocky Mountain divisions of the NP.
On March 18, 1940, the NP assigned No. 103 to 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".

[passengerfan]

Just wanted to add to my earlier post about the NP Water Baggage cars. Looked up my notes on the subject and the cars actually operated in the NCL from Chicago to Seattle but the extra water was not required between St. Paul and Chicago as the CB&Q E units that hauled the train between those points had ample onboard water and did not need the extra water in the trailing water baggage cars.
In one of my Np binders of notes it also states that the NP was not a great lover of the Vapor Clarkson steam generators in F units and mounted Elesco type steam generators and found them to be more reliable and able to produce more steam per hour, something the NP thought was necessary in -20 winter temperatures across Montana and North Dakota.

[RGeorge]

Per Andy Sperandeo's research (MR, How "the diesel that did it" was Painted, November 1989, ppgs 180-181),

"The demonstrator (103) B units had steam generators for train heating..."

Sperandeo noted that he collaborated with EMD's Al Kamm Jr. to determine the precise colors of 103, to include identifying the actual Duco Dulux paint codes. Presumably, Sperandeo discussed other features on the Demonstrator as well, such as the steam generators.

[wjstix]

BTW Trains editor David P. Morgan in his article "The Diesel That Did It" notes that the FT demonstrators had steam generators 'tucked away in their B units' so they could be used on passenger trains too.

[rrandb]

I believe you all have done an admirable job and feel humbled and suitably chatised [bow]. I hope by myself and others presenting the commonly held belief and the majority held position that (begining with EMC/GM/EMD FT 1030/1031 were designed and built as pure freight) I have not offender anyone. My humble apologie's if I have in any way. There is a great article's worth of information posted on these pages and a better idea may be to change my reqest from a question to an offer or a request for an article. As wjstx, you have done such an excelent job you should recieve all credit for compilling the most material on this subject found almost anywhere. Once again I personelly found it exciting and personely complelling your excelent arguments. That said where do I put the steamline on the front plow? Below the coupler and thru the plow in the small gap between coupler and plow. You mentioned a hose type conection. Did you mean rubber with appropriate steamline connecter[?] On the B end were there conventional steam lines between A /B or permantly conected? [?] [:-^] Once again thank you and as always ENJOY

[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.

[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)]

[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.

[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]

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

[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 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

[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.

[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.

[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]

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