FT Demonstrators On Passenger Trains?

[rrandb]

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

[wjstix]

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

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

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

[rrandb]

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

[wjstix]

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

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

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

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

[rrandb]

QUOTE: Originally posted by fiverings

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

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

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

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

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

[wjstix]

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

[rrandb]

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

[jimrice4449]

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

[wjstix]

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

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

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

[jimrice4449]

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

[wjstix]

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

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

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

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

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

[twcenterprises]

RE: Ft's vs. FP7's

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

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

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

Brad

[wjstix]

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

[Wdlgln005]

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

[wjstix]

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

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

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

[Eddystone]

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

In the section on car heating systems on page 399:

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

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

[Anonymous]

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

[wjstix]

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

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