It is time to ad the first diesels to the layout. Seeing I am doing transition, I need to learn the difference between the E and F units I see talked about. I would appreciate descriptions and a reference or two.
Thanks.
Though I claim absolutly zero expertise/knowledge on this subject (;]), I'll attempt to atr least set them apart and let someone else fill in the major details.
The F unit was introduced in 1959 (thank you wikipedia) as the FT unit, and really showed what diesels could do. The "F" stands for freight, and that is just what these behemoths did. In 1946, the F2 replaced the FT, and then so on, the F2 replaced by the F3, the F3 replaced by the F7 (also made an FP7 [freight/passenger]), the F7 replaced by the F9 (also FP9 and FL9[FL9 could run off of third rail juice]). They had 4 axles, and were also used in passenger service.
The E unit was introduced in 1937 as the EA/EB unit (all built for the B&O). The E1 was also built in 1937 (ATSF), the E2 for named trains jointly operated by the UP, C&NW, and SP (City of San Fransisco and the City of L.A.[SP only one of the 2]). The E3 was built starting in 1939 for all roads that bought one. It was replaced by the E4, and then it went along sorta like the F unit, but from 5-9, all #s. E units had six axles.
Sawyer Berry
Clemson University c/o 2018
Building a protolanced industrial park layout
F units had a single 16 cylinder motor, and were used primarily for freight service, and passenger service on some roads, usually with higher gearing for speed.
E units had two 12 cylinder motors, and were used almost exclusively for passenger service.
davidmbedard wrote: E units are MUCH longer than F units because they have 2 motors in them. E units also have A-1-A trucks as opposed the the F unit.David B
E units are MUCH longer than F units because they have 2 motors in them. E units also have A-1-A trucks as opposed the the F unit.
David B
Actually both E and F units have FOUR traction Motors, but the E units generally
have two engines, while the the F units have only one.
Packers1 wrote: Though I claim absolutly zero expertise/knowledge on this subject (;]), I'll attempt to atr least set them apart and let someone else fill in the major details.The F unit was introduced in 1959 (thank you wikipedia) as the FT unit, and really showed what diesels could do. The "F" stands for freight, and that is just what these behemoths did. In 1946, the F2 replaced the FT, and then so on, the F2 replaced by the F3, the F3 replaced by the F7 (also made an FP7 [freight/passenger]), the F7 replaced by the F9 (also FP9 and FL9[FL9 could run off of third rail juice]). They had 4 axles, and were also used in passenger service.
Actually, the F-units were introduced in 1939 with the FT.
Rotor
Jake: How often does the train go by? Elwood: So often you won't even notice ...
Rotorranch wrote: Packers1 wrote: Though I claim absolutly zero expertise/knowledge on this subject (;]), I'll attempt to atr least set them apart and let someone else fill in the major details.The F unit was introduced in 1959 (thank you wikipedia) as the FT unit, and really showed what diesels could do. The "F" stands for freight, and that is just what these behemoths did. In 1946, the F2 replaced the FT, and then so on, the F2 replaced by the F3, the F3 replaced by the F7 (also made an FP7 [freight/passenger]), the F7 replaced by the F9 (also FP9 and FL9[FL9 could run off of third rail juice]). They had 4 axles, and were also used in passenger service.Actually, the F-units were introduced in 1939 with the FT.FT (1939-1945) 1,350 hp/unit, 555 A units, 541 B units built F2 (1946) 1,350 hp/unit, 74 A units, 30 B units built F3 (1945-1949) 1,500 hp/unit, 1111 A units, 696 B units built F7 (1949-1953) 1,500 hp/unit, 2366 A units, 1483 B units built FP7 (1949-1953) 1,500 hp/unit, 378 A units built F9 (1954-1957) 1,750 hp/unit, 87 A units, 154 B units built FP9 (1954-1959) 1,750 hp/unit, 79 A units built FL9 (1956-1960) 1,750/1,800 hp/unit, 60 A units built Rotor
Whoops, musta typed it wrong. thanks for the correction, rotor.
The E units came in in very limited numbers to pull the crack streamliners of the late 1930's. They were longer, geared higher so they could reach higher speeds, and twin engined. They could keep moving, abet at a lower speed, if one engine conked out on a run. The E units were always quick, on good track they could do 100 mph. After WWII, when War Production Board restrictions on diesel locomotive manufacture were lifted, railroads bought fair numbers of them for passenger service. As passenger service dwindled down to Amtrack in the '70s, some surplus E units were put into freight service.
The F units were intended for, and mostly bought for, freight service. They were single engined, and lower geared, giving more starting effort and a lower top speed. A fair number were later used for passenger service, for which they were fitted with steam generators to heat the passenger cars. The legacy passenger car fleet used steam heating, 'cause steam engines had plenty of steam. Diesels had to carry an oil fired boiler to provide steam heat. The F units were the diesels that retired the steam engine fleet. They were durable and soldiered on into the 1970's. They would still be inproduction except for the invention of the road switcher. The road switchers had as much power as the F units, could run as fast, and had enough rear ward vision to allow train crews to switch cars, which was difficult to do in the F units with no rear vision at all.
David Starr www.newsnorthwoods.blogspot.com
Alex
Here's a few pix to compare the differences -
E-unit: http://www.railfan.net/cgi-bin/thumb/subphoto.cgi?/railpix/submit/edkaspriske/PRR._E-8_Horseshoe.jpg
F-unit:http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=238530&nseq=3
-Ken in Maryland (B&O modeler, former CSX modeler)
Now I know why my F7s look so small along side my PA1s!
I wish I had known that before I bought the "F"s
Lee
Autobus Prime wrote:ART:The Alco PA is better-looking than either, of course. But a Hudson...okay, I stop.
Nothin prettier than a PA - or even a FA!!
Now if they hadn't smoked so much . . . . .
Just to muddy things up a bit, here's a Danish "E" unit made under license by Nohab of Sweden:
builder plate: http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-8/1069636/DSB40a.jpg
Jay
C-415 Build: https://imageshack.com/a/tShC/1
Other builds: https://imageshack.com/my/albums
yankee flyer wrote: Now I know why my F7s look so small along side my PA1s!
If you really want to dwarf those PA1s...a Baldwin "Centipede" will do just that. Those things were longer than even E units!
'E's (for Electro Motive) were Diesels designed for 'Streamlined' Passenger Service starting with the E-1 (streamlined 'production' versions of earliest UP M-1000, CB&Q's Pioneer Zepher, ATSF's 'Amos & Andy' Cab diesels.
FT's (for 'Freight Train') were wartime freight designs that revolutionized locomotives for RR's.They worked alongside Steam, and were lower maintenance.
F (for 'Freight') were a post war extension of the FT. Santa Fe, after using 'E's on their grades, decided on 'F-3's (and later F-7's) for their transcontinents passenger trains.(4 units= 6000 HP did not require 'helpers'.
E units had A-1-A 6 wheeled trucks with the center being unpowered. F's had 4 wheel BB trucks with all 4 being powered.
ALCO, a successful steam builder, called their fist 'Covered wagon' diesel 'DL', and later models just 'P' (A&B)for passenger, and 'F' for freight. Their 'Hood' units were lettered 'DL' for Diesel Locomotive, then sometimes RSD for 'Road Switcher Diesel' as opposed to RS for their smaller 'switchers. Later models were I.D'd as 'Century', to compete ln a losing battle with EMD.
Fairbanks Moorse, a wartime builder of diesel engines for submarines, had one passenger entry, but were more successful with High Hood switchers, labeled 'HH'. Their lone passenger engine was labeled 'M-50' (don't ask). It was a joint effort with GE and built in Erie PA.
GE, a late comer has had several I.D. schemes - one for 6 wheel trucks and another for 4, which identify their horepower. Someone else can fill you in. My interest is in the earlier diesel period.
The post-war era found RR's needing to replace their worn-out engines, and the lower maintenance cost of the Diesel engine was promising. Sales were high.
For starters, they required no stops for water or tenders. Passenger engines had boilers to furnish heat for existing passenger cars.
Art--
You're gonna get a WHAT!!??
Okay, okay, I'll calm down. Actually, I've got 2 diseasels on the Yuba River Sub, an F-3 A/B set that I use for passenger service (just like the Rio Grande did--I mean, let's face it, the Rockies were not exactly Speed Demon territory, LOL). For some reason, F-3's appeal to me, they're not as butt-ugly as the FT's, nor are they as sterile looking as the F-7's. They're kinda 'in between' with enough portholes and grillwork to break up that really BORING body line.
I've also got a very early diseasel articulated train, the "Pioneer Zephyr", which for me has one of the handsomest of the VERY early diseasels--a cute little shovel-nose.
Unfortunately, nobody seems to be making my favorite E-unit, the bubble-nosed E-2, which was used by CNW, UP and SP on an early (1938) version of the City of San Francisco. It's one of those "So ugly it's got charm" locos that when it came out was the Very Last word in Streamlining. It was in an A/B/B configuration, and for the life of me, I always thought the last B unit was the baggage car, that's how STRANGE it looked, LOL!
However, Burlingtons stainless steel E-5's were just about the handsomest EMD passenger diesels I ever saw.
But IMO, EMD never, EVER designed a passenger loco with the classic lines and contours of the Alco PA's. And they put out SMOKE! Just like they were an 'honorary' steamer!
Tom
Tom View my layout photos! http://s299.photobucket.com/albums/mm310/TWhite-014/Rio%20Grande%20Yuba%20River%20Sub One can NEVER have too many Articulateds!
Guilford Guy wrote:Art, if your modeling through the mountains, you may want to get some FL9's!(Theres a company that makes them in resin) The FL9's had a 2 axle truck leading, and a 3 axle truck trailing. If your modeling through the mountains you can add 3rd rail territory, managed by FL9's and some 2nd hand New Haven Engines...
What mountain railroads used third rail?
Dave
Just be glad you don't have to press "2" for English.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zQ_ALEdDUB8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6hqFS1GZL4s
http://s73.photobucket.com/user/steemtrayn/media/MovingcoalontheDCM.mp4.html?sort=3&o=27
Imperial Hobby Productions
IHP makes the FL9 shells.
steemtrayn wrote: Guilford Guy wrote:Art, if your modeling through the mountains, you may want to get some FL9's!(Theres a company that makes them in resin) The FL9's had a 2 axle truck leading, and a 3 axle truck trailing. If your modeling through the mountains you can add 3rd rail territory, managed by FL9's and some 2nd hand New Haven Engines... What mountain railroads used third rail?
The FL9s were NEVER used by mountain railroads. They were only purchased by the New Haven. The third rail shoe was required for electrical pickup as the power source on the run through the tunnels and underground going into New York City.
Don Gibson wrote: E's (for Electro Motive) F (for 'Freight')
E's (for Electro Motive)
F (for 'Freight')
EMD used letters for the horsepower on its early engines:
S for 600 hp (as in SW-1, 600 hp, Welded frame)
N for 900 hp (as in NW or NC)
T for 1200 hp (as in the TA)
F for 1500 hp (as in the F3)
E for 1800 hp (as in the E1)
EMD soon abandoned that scheme(with the BL/GP/SD series), but retained the letter codes for those type engines, even though the horsepower didnt match the name (they changed the model designation scheme again with the GP18 and once more with the GP30).
Dave H.
Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com
Don,E = Eighteen Hundred HorsepowerF = Fourteen Hundred Horsepower (really 1350Hp, but they tend to round up)N = Nine Hundred HorsepowerS = Six Hundred HorsepowerT = Truss FrameW = Welded FrameC = Cast Frame
So an FT was a 1400Hp loco in a truss frame (IOW, a carbody unit). An SW-1 was a 600Hp loco with a welded frame. And so on. E doesn't stand for EMD, FT doesn't stand for "Freight Train".To all:FL9's were originally designed for long distance passenger trains for carrying a lot of water (which was the limiting range factor, not fuel back then). That's why they had a 5th axle...to handle all that water weight. No one bought any. Then the NH came knocking, and EMD dusted off the FL9 plan, removed the water tanks, added 3rd rail shoes and an electrical cabinet, and presto! A Dual-mode loco is born. BTW, the second 30 FL9's ordered in 1960 should technically be called FL18's, but weren't for federal loan reasons.
So if you wanna do a "What If?", a western road FL9 could have happened (just without the 3rd rail gear and a Blomberg front truck).
Paul A. Cutler III************Weather Or No Go New Haven************
ARTHILL wrote:and a reference or two.
and a reference or two.
[1] Check out the extensive prototype "Diesels By Bulder" photos at North East Rails...
http://www.northeast.railfan.net/diesel.html
[2] Also consider the Kalmbach "Diesel Spotters Guides" found time to time on eBay.The Second Diesel Spotter's Guide takes you up to 1972 which is probably suitable for your era's modeling purposes. The book(s) provides all the horsepower and diesel characteristics you would ever need for prototype identification.
Conemaugh Road & Traction circa 1956
From the far, far reaches of the wild, wild west I am: rtpoteet
Paul3 wrote: Don,E = Eighteen Hundred HorsepowerF = Fourteen Hundred Horsepower (really 1350Hp, but they tend to round up)N = Nine Hundred HorsepowerS = Six Hundred HorsepowerT = Truss FrameW = Welded FrameC = Cast FrameSo an FT was a 1400Hp loco in a truss frame (IOW, a carbody unit). An SW-1 was a 600Hp loco with a welded frame. And so on. E doesn't stand for EMD, FT doesn't stand for "Freight Train".To all:FL9's were originally designed for long distance passenger trains for carrying a lot of water (which was the limiting range factor, not fuel back then). That's why they had a 5th axle...to handle all that water weight. No one bought any. Then the NH came knocking, and EMD dusted off the FL9 plan, removed the water tanks, added 3rd rail shoes and an electrical cabinet, and presto! A Dual-mode loco is born. BTW, the second 30 FL9's ordered in 1960 should technically be called FL18's, but weren't for federal loan reasons.So if you wanna do a "What If?", a western road FL9 could have happened (just without the 3rd rail gear and a Blomberg front truck).Paul A. Cutler III************Weather Or No Go New Haven************
dehusman wrote: Don Gibson wrote: E's (for Electro Motive) F (for 'Freight') EMD used letters for the horsepower on its early engines:S for 600 hp (as in SW-1, 600 hp, Welded frame)N for 900 hp (as in NW or NC)T for 1200 hp (as in the TA)F for 1500 hp (as in the F3)E for 1800 hp (as in the E1)EMD soon abandoned that scheme(with the BL/GP/SD series), but retained the letter codes for those type engines, even though the horsepower didnt match the name (they changed the model designation scheme again with the GP18 and once more with the GP30).Dave H.
Packers1 wrote: Rotorranch wrote: Packers1 wrote: Though I claim absolutly zero expertise/knowledge on this subject (;]), I'll attempt to atr least set them apart and let someone else fill in the major details.The F unit was introduced in 1959 (thank you wikipedia) as the FT unit, and really showed what diesels could do. The "F" stands for freight, and that is just what these behemoths did. In 1946, the F2 replaced the FT, and then so on, the F2 replaced by the F3, the F3 replaced by the F7 (also made an FP7 [freight/passenger]), the F7 replaced by the F9 (also FP9 and FL9[FL9 could run off of third rail juice]). They had 4 axles, and were also used in passenger service.Actually, the F-units were introduced in 1939 with the FT.FT (1939-1945) 1,350 hp/unit, 555 A units, 541 B units built F2 (1946) 1,350 hp/unit, 74 A units, 30 B units built F3 (1945-1949) 1,500 hp/unit, 1111 A units, 696 B units built F7 (1949-1953) 1,500 hp/unit, 2366 A units, 1483 B units built FP7 (1949-1953) 1,500 hp/unit, 378 A units built F9 (1954-1957) 1,750 hp/unit, 87 A units, 154 B units built FP9 (1954-1959) 1,750 hp/unit, 79 A units built FL9 (1956-1960) 1,750/1,800 hp/unit, 60 A units built RotorWhoops, musta typed it wrong. thanks for the correction, rotor.
Ya think?
I figured it was just a typo.
It happens!
modelmaker51 wrote:Just to muddy things up a bit, here's a Danish "E" unit made under license by Nohab of Sweden:builder plate: http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-8/1069636/DSB40a.jpg
Hi there... Your "E" is really an "F" ... we also have units in Australia with a clos=eer to the classic Buldog nose ( slightly bigger loading gauge than the Europeans ) with a single motor and either 4 or 6 traction motors. F's were catalogued by EMD in optional A1A-A1A or C-C (Co-Co as we know them) to spread the weight. Source Our GM Scrapbook by Trains magazine.
The Danish unit would have 1 567 16 cylinder Engine not two 12's as ours do... just don't get fooled by the trucks/bogies!
Regards from Down Under
Trevor www.xdford.digitalzones.com
Paul3 wrote: Don,E = Eighteen Hundred HorsepowerF = Fourteen Hundred Horsepower (really 1350Hp, but they tend to round up)N = Nine Hundred HorsepowerS = Six Hundred HorsepowerT = Truss FrameW = Welded FrameC = Cast FrameSo an FT was a 1400Hp loco in a truss frame (IOW, a carbody unit). An SW-1 was a 600Hp loco with a welded frame. And so on. E doesn't stand for EMD, FT doesn't stand for "Freight Train".Paul A. Cutler III************Weather Or No Go New Haven************
So an FT was a 1400Hp loco in a truss frame (IOW, a carbody unit). An SW-1 was a 600Hp loco with a welded frame. And so on. E doesn't stand for EMD, FT doesn't stand for "Freight Train".Paul A. Cutler III************Weather Or No Go New Haven************
Actually if you look at the EMD advertisements from 1939 they were advertising the FT as either a "F"ifty four hundred horsepower locomotive or a "T"wenty seven hundred horsepower locomotive. That is either a 4 unit being the "F" or 2 unit locomotive being the "T". GM considered 4 units to be ONE locomotive but conceded that there were times when just two units might suffice. Contemporary railroading also thought of the sets as one locomotive, thus the locomotive number plus A, B, C, or D to designate the individual unit. It wasn't until much later that railroads discovered the advantage of breaking up the sets.
Like many of the other designations such as E, SW, NW the F was retained even though the original Fifty Four Hundred horsepower meaning was gone.