Intermountain FP9A Question

[tewahipounamu]

Hi everybody,

I am really no expert on all this but rather someone who has watched this discussion trying to learn something. For me, there was quite a bit to learn. I'll try to sum up:

The original question has not yet been answered; some contributors tried to get the thing back on track but the topic has been captured by the first answer, basically, which said in it's essence: "Since there were no FP9Bs it stands to reason that there ain't no such animal as an FP9A". Most of the rest of the discussion is about the question what the meaning of "were" and "ain't" is in this context. While some argue that the use of this terminology by the operator is sufficient, others argue that basically the terminology of the manufacturer determines the nomenclature.

At least one of the supporters of the latter position still calls for evidence that other railways than CN also used the term FP9A. Even if such evidence were given, the dispute would not be settled if I am correct in my understanding of the two positions as given above. As far as I can see, Jason is the only one having really made an argument regarding these two positions. This argument is basically that the manufacturer's terminology is certainly technically correct, but there also is a common practice among those people who live and work with the engines that can't be denied. Therefore, he argues, both nomenclatures should be considered correct.

Personally, I agree with Jason – after all, I do call the Turbo "Turbo" although I have read before (guess, where) that the manufacturer called it TMT-*D. For these reasons, the question to me comes down to this: Was the use of the terms "FP9A" and/or "FP9B" common practice? (Although the latter term, strictly speaking, was brought into the discussion only by the first answer by claiming these never existed.)

Some statements have been made that people – at least at CN and VIA – made use of "FP9A"; however it seems nobody has any tape recordings to prove that. On the other hand, the web page http://cnlines.ca/CNcyclopedia/loco/dbook.php has been posted. On that page we find a document with the title "Diesel Unit Data Book" which seems to be an official CN document dated September 1964.

One contribution said, 43 FP9 units have been built by GMD for CN and no FP9B units have ever been built. According to the "Diesel Unit Data Book" – sorry, is is a bit lengthy, but I would like to give all refrences that seem relevant to me:

• CN 6500-6512 were built in 1954-1955 and are labelled in that book as FP9A (cf. page 103);
• CN 6513 was built in 1955 and is labelled as FP9A (p. 104);
• CN 6514-6522 were built in 1957 and are labelled as FP-9a (p. 105);
• the same goes for CN 6523-6532 (p. 106);
• CN 6533-6542 were built in 1958 and are again labelled FP-9a (p. 107).

Then we have:

• CN 6600-6612 built in 1954-1955 and labelled as FP-9b (p. 108);
• CN 6613 was built in 1955 and is labelled as FP-9b (p. 109);
• CN 6614-6620 were built in 1957 and are labelled as F-9b (p. 110);
• CN 6621-6630 were built in 1958 and are labelled as F-9b (p. 111);
• CN 6631-6637 were built in 1958 are are labelled as F-9b (p. 112).

According to this source, CN called all of their FP9 units with cab FP9A; they called some of their cabless units FP-9b, others F-9b. I don't know the reasons for the differentiation between the latter two, but that would be another topic again.

To me, the use of the terms FP9A – and even FP9B – therefore seems to have been practice at CN and thus correct because they were used by CN. Since the quoted document is from 1964, when the units had been in use for less than 10 years and would be in use for quite a while, the revisionist statement does not apply.

So, if we accept that common practice is relevant, the given source shows that FP9A units (and FP9B) existed; if we don't, they probably didn't as we don't have any proof for a use of that terminology by the manufacturer.

Cheers,
Harry

P.S.: No matter how correct a contribution is or how much a contributor tries to emphasize something he has said before, I personally consider it impolite to yell at people.

[Rapido]

ATLANTIC CENTRAL

TA462,

I do seem to recall some of those CN FP9's where built without steam generators and some had them removed latter. Yet they are still FP9's due to their longer wheelbase, not the presence or lack of steam generators.

>

All of CN's FP9As had steam gennies, as did all of their F9Bs.

When VIA contracted CN to rebuild some of the 6500s in 1983, 6300-6304 were made 13,000 LB lighter by having their steam generators removed. They did maintain their steam lines, steam connectors, and steam genny controls. The remaining 10 units (6305-6314) retained their steam gennies. As these modifications were all done after VIA owned the units, all of the FP9As had steam generating equipment throughout their CN service lives.

You might be getting your wires crossed with the story of the RS18M (CN designation MRE-18g - RS18M is a railfan term). These were rebuilt with HEP generators in 1967 but two (3151 and 3153) had the HEP generators removed in 1970 following an accident, and were thus classified MR-18g.

None of the F9B units were rebuilt and all kept their steam gennies until retirement.

Best regards,

Jason

[ATLANTIC CENTRAL]

Jason,

Thanks for clarifing the details about that, I remembered reading about both groups of locos and could not recall the details or the source to do a quick fact check, hence my qualifier "I do seem to recall".

And my main point was that these modifications created FP9's without steam generators. Did that make them into F9's, I think not. They where still long wheel base FP units. To any common sense way of thinking this kills the logic of calling a steam generator equiped B unit an FP9B. 

We will never know why CN chose to use the designations they did, but they did not follow common practice or EMD practice and are confusing at best outside CN/VIA specific discussions.

Sheldon

 

[blownout cylinder]

SSW9389

I would refer you to The Second Diesel Spotter's Guide pages EMD 99-100, but I have dissed that reference too many times myself. If you care to look Kalmbach has it correctly as FP7 and FP9. Whatever CN/VIA or popular railfan culture has done with the true identity of this type of unit is called historical revisionism. You can read about it on Wiki.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_revisionism_(negationism)

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_revisionism 

While the term may be true in some contexts some of us also use the FP9A/B or whoever to DIFFERENTIATE sometimes between those that have gensets or what-have-you and those that don't. If a locomotive was modified at either CN's own shop or a private contractors shop they would be registered as such. Quite frankly I'm guessing that we are not quite appreciating the differing levels between the end user/customer and the manufacturers terms-----In my case I tend to go from the end user's nomenclature---there is after all a HISTORY that these locomotives have as well---a FP9A is going to be different in appearance from a FP9B at some point. I woould like to differentiate/distinguish a cabless unit from a cabbed unit--and if there is a term for them then I'll use it

No sense in getting fundamentalist about it----

[selector]

I recently had an occasion, at a large social gethering, to meet a fireman on the CPR who fired on a Hudson 4-6-4 sixty years ago.  It was a short time, a month if I recall, and then steam use came to an end on the CPR.

When I began to talk to him about the Hudson, he didn't really know what I meant.  I reverted to Whyte notation, using 4-6-4, at which he said, "Oh, the 2000's!"

A rose, by any other name.....

[Rapido]

ATLANTIC CENTRAL

Jason,

We will never know why CN chose to use the designations they did, but they did not follow common practice or EMD practice and are confusing at best outside CN/VIA specific discussions.

Sheldon

 

I agree. When producing a model as CN-specific as our FP9A, I actually did use CN's designations as a way to differentiate the details: some have 36" fans; some have 48" fans. Some have 3-pipe cooling coils; some have 5-pipe cooling coils. Some have an as-delivered MU hatch; some have a shop-built MU hatch. Using CN's designations (GPA-17c, for example) allows the knowledgeable modellers to quickly decide which ones they want and educates others as to the detail variations between the orders.

However, when it comes to products that are to be painted in a multitude of "stand in" paint schemes (such as our passenger cars) or models that did not change so radically between railroads, using a railroad-specific term would not be clear to most modellers.

Regards,

Jason

[R. T. POTEET]

R. T. POTEET

Since there were no FP9Bs it stands to reason that there ain't no such animal as an FP9A; if a railroad needed a B-Unit booster (for their FPs) they just coupled on a standard B-Unit from an F-Unit. That doesn't answer your inquiry but it might clarify your nomenclature! 

I DO WISH I'D KEPT MY MOUTH SHUT! Had I known that railroads in the Great White North labeled these things as FP9A's -- ogdenshops is from Calgary and, therefore, his designation is correct in that regards -- anyway, had I realized that they --CN, CP, VIA, and perhaps some others -- labeled these things as FP9As I would probably have done just that.

After three pages of brouhaha ogdenshops still doesn't know what to do about the trucks on his unit and, as I specified in my original posting, I can't help him out but I sure wish somebody would.

[Anonymous]

 Like in many other posts, there is a lesson to be learned:

Answer the OP´s question, or leave it!

These never ending discussions on who is right in .... whatever, are not leading anywhere than to a high degree of frustration.

"Si tacuisses, philosophus mansisses!

Nothing personal, R:T. POTEET!

[R. T. POTEET]

No need to apologize to me, my friend; I didn't open up the can of worms!

[don7]

I feel sorry for the original poster who asked a simple question and has yet to get an answer.

The result of the thread being hijacked as per the subsequent posting/statement there never were any FP9A's is becoming more and more common as people respond to threads with statements that have no connection what so ever with the original question.

[pastorbob]

Gee, four pages of garbage that never answered the question originally posed.  I guess that experts must have a place to argue over trivia.

Good night.

Bob

[blownout cylinder]

ogdenshops

I recently noticed that one of the rear side frames is slighty out of kilter on one of my locomotives and was wondering how to safely remove it and fix it without screwing it up any further. I tried looking for part diagrams online, but haven't had any luck so far.

I'm wondering whether some type of warpage may not have settled in. I think you would need to look for tabs and such and gently pry those away from the frames--I have an older model Intermountain loke that  used tabs. Is there a seperation between the body and frame there?  Might be an idea to check the other ones as well. Good luck with the repairs.

There still might be an answer out here---- 

[Rapido]

pastorbob

Gee, four pages of garbage that never answered the question originally posed.  I guess that experts must have a place to argue over trivia.

Good night.

Bob

Actually, as an FP9A fan I found some of the discussion quite interesting. The discussion of nomenclature also made me pay more attention to this issue and will keep me more on my toes in future.

While I agree that the original question was not answered, should on-topic tangential discussions be banned from online discussion forums? I hope not.

-Jason

[selector]

The protocol for threads is intended that the person making the first post is meant to have the privilege of setting the topic, and respondents to the thread should afford the OP the courtesy of addressing the matter, on topic, to the best of their ability.  Those who feel they might be able to contribute, but who would like some clarification first, are well within the bounds of propriety in civil discourse to ask for that clarification.  In that respect, R.T., as artlessly as he composed it, was correct to state what he understood to be an error.  Because of his online demeanor, some responses were in kind, and the thread became more argumentative in nature.  I am sure this was not what many onlookers and the OP had hoped.

Tangential discussions are always welcome, but they should not co-opt the thread that may generate them...there is always room in another, brand new, thread for those possibly important diversions.

-Crandell