Something to consider is that while the FM prime movers are shorter than many, they are a lot taller - look at how tall a Trainmaster is. So while you may get 2 of them in the length of those big electrics, for 4800HP, they are far taller than would fit under the rounded end hoods, or even under an Alco PB hood.
Maybe they had a couple of wrecked Trainmasters so parts of their shells were used to form the body to enclose the FM prime movers.
--Randy
Modeling the Reading Railroad in the 1950's
Visit my web site at www.readingeastpenn.com for construction updates, DCC Info, and more.
Yes it will be an electric that has diesel prime movers for extra power and operations beyond the electrified zone...
Steve
If everything seems under control, you're not going fast enough!
Was your design going to be an electric with a diesel motor?
You mentioned pantographs.
A plausable concept. And one used around New York City even today. So you have almost 100 years of designs to study. FM powerplants. Were definitely higher horsepower than anything of thier time. Except they were a bear to work on. Now if yours over comes those maintanace issues. Study the FM design and maintanace issue to see if what exterior changes would be made to over come them. They also had high fuel efficiency. Think of the fuel savings verse power out put they could do today
As for alco. There most reliable design is the 251 series. That is 50's. Into 60's. Though. Alcos had a simpler easy to work on design. Although failure of some component was always a rule. They kept on running. On the road temp fixes usually could be done to get the train in.
There are some basics to help figure out which will work I do appologize for repeating anything you already know
Wolfie
A pessimist sees a dark tunnel
An optimist sees the light at the end of the tunnel
A realist sees a frieght train
An engineer sees three idiots standing on the tracks stairing blankly in space
Ok try this one on for size... the NWP-SWP System had an electrified zone that was becoming underrated for traffic demands therefore the system rebuilt Bipolars with diesel prime movers to assist the caternary power supply and to allow the units to operate outside the electrified zone...
Now would FM opposed piston prime movers be better than the Alcos?
Again, reality, which is not necessary for your model.
There weren't many one of a kind locomotives in the diesel era. If you look at something like the UP Gas Turbines, they used trucks similar or identical to the the ones used on diesels running at the same time. Instead of a D truck, they used B+B with a span bolster in the early units (3 axle trucks in the last units).
Using something that exists in HO already be easier than trying to get custom sideframes made.
CC
A word of friendly, constructive advice for the OP........
Actually, that is what you have already been given on your various threads. The folks here are thrilled to see a young person interested in the hobby and obviously have gone out of their way to encourage you - or to point out pitfalls in your many plans. I urge you to pay attention to them and value it accordingly.
The thing about doing a project - whatever it is - is to start out in "beginner" stages and work your way to bigger and more difficult projects as your skills and experience and wallet dictate.
Those of us that have been around for awhile have seen others come into the Forum with skyhigh aspirations, and they solicit advice and opinions on their proposed works. But then, after the verbiage wears thin, they run off........
Lets hope that won't be the case with you, for the hobby can really use some young, fresh, and ambitious blood...........
ENJOY !
Mobilman44
Living in southeast Texas, formerly modeling the "postwar" Santa Fe and Illinois Central
NWP SWPSo could I use the sideframes from the Bipolar but with better traction motors?
Probably not in real life. Do whatever you want for your model.
So could I use the sideframes from the Bipolar but with better traction motors?
NWP SWPremember MILW only scrapped the Bipolars because the milwaukee shops did not rebuild the units properly
Doesn't matter. Bi-polar motors are inneficent and only remained in use because the electricity was relatively cheap. For a long-haul diesel as you are proposing, engineers in the real world would have used efficient traction motors.
Build whatever you want ... which is what everyone is telling you. And I am telling you that too.
But if you make unrealistic engineering choices in your concept, the result will be unrealistic. If that doesn't matter to you, then all good. Seems silly to take it personally when people are just giving you facts.
Have you ever built any railroad models from kits? Kitbashed or scratchbuilt anything? This is a pretty heavy subject for a first ever modeling project.
NWP SWPbubble burst picture
Bubble burst? Oh, I wondered what that was.
NWP SWPoffended me
I am reluctant to comment. Unfortunately that has not stopped me before. People these days seem to be very easily "offended". I think that many of us need to develop a little thicker skin, especially high school seniors.
I was not offended. I offer my advice and suggestions, people can take or leave them. I've been participating in online forums since before there was an internet - it's no skin off my back. I offer my suggestions based on my own experience and knowledge, depending on what it is it may be something I have first hand experience in, or things I've learned through consumption of vast amounts of written material. If I were easily offended I would have been gone long ago.
Thank you Tom. I apologize for offending you guys...
I deleted the photo, Steven. Sorry for the offense.
Tom
https://tstage9.wixsite.com/nyc-modeling
Time...It marches on...without ever turning around to see if anyone is even keeping in step.
I don't mind people giving me information just be kind about it, tstage your bubble burst picture offended me that's all I'm saying.
NWP SWPI just would like opinions and idea that help me achieve my goal not carpet bomb it till I give up on it... Don't complain that I'm an armchair modeler but you then shoot down every idea I have. Not Cool...
So, are you saying that you don't want anyone to point out any potential pitfalls to your ideas so that you don't end up wasting needless money (that you've stated you don't have enough of yet) because you've hit a major design flaw wall? And it's our fault that you are still an armchair modeler because we don't acquiesce to your every idea with "positive" feedback?
Seems you don't really respect the opinions and experiences of your fellow modelers here on the forum as much as you claim you do, Steven. If someone raises a question then it's seen as negativity and naysaying. Maybe your coming to the forum with too much of a consumer mindset rather than one that enjoys dialoguing and learning?
The reality is, if you want a prototype explanation for an otherwise fantasy locomotive, then it has to be designed along prototype design principles. You are completely free to make up whatever you want to make up - no one's telling you you can't build whatever fantasy loco you want. There's a web site out there that has a lot of wild designs on it, some I think were built in model form. But you keep adding that you want it to be explainable - that means you need some sort of valid design reason to make certain decisions.
It comes down to - do you just want to go ahead and build a gee-whiz fantasy loco that surely would look impressive, or do you really want to explore the what-if of a prototype buying the frame and running gear of a large electric loco and making it diesel powered? Either path is correct, it's your railroad. All that the rest of us are saying is that if you want option B, then there have to be some contraints and some of the things you've said you wanted to do don't fall within the prototypical constraints you yourself are applying to the project. If you just want to go off and make whatever it is you envision, then it will be like the stained glass display guy - it will certainly be interesting and there's really no room for anyone to criticize.
I'd like to apologize for going off like I did. I just get tired of the beating my ideas take every time I post here... I post here to get advice on how to go about things, I could build my monster locomotive and be perfectly happy with not explaining everything but I'd like to have a "prototype" explanation for the thing, but instead I get, "why are you bothering to attempt this there's not a prototype for that!" And that's a great way to get people to leave the forum and possibly the hobby...
I still value your opinions just deliver them in a way that helps me attain my goal, thank you!
Three explanations...
1 the MILW scrapped them, the NWP-SWP bought the running gear and they needed diesels to power the monster.
2 because of the extra weight from the engines they made half the trucks on one frame and the others on another and because of the weight they wanted each half to have a leading and trailing truck...
3 the NWP-SWP wanted 1 to 1 replacements for steamers but could run from one end of the system to the other with a few fueling stops...
PS the greatest thing about proto freelancing is you can do as you please because at the end of the day rules 1 and 2 are key, 1 it's my railroad I make the rules, 2 if confused reconsult rule 1...
Besides model railroading is supposed to be fun!
I'm not complaining about being given opinions, I just would like opinions and idea that help me achieve my goal not carpet bomb it till I give up on it... Don't complain that I'm an armchair modeler but you then shoot down every idea I have. Not Cool...
Now if they had overhead available, why would they bother to put diesels in it?
There's no way you could just slap extra trucks on and call it good, this would mess with the equalization and the tracking. More is not always better - the more wheels, the less weight per wheel and this end up hurting tractive effort, even if those wheels are powered. Like Overmod said, look at the later electric locos like the E33 and E44. Diesels without the diesel engine in them, and pantographs on top. The Baldwin Centipedes weren't hugely successful and the super power diesels that came after that the UP used ended up with a more standard diesel truck, only larger. Not oodles of wheels.
Now I need some popular opinion vote...
1 Do I build a boxcab single unit like the NYC T motors? Easiest.
2 Do I build an A unit that has a porch at the front and the body stretches to the rear end of the unit? A little harder.
3 Do I build a unit that has a full length body without porches? Harder but doable.
If I do the second or third do I:
1 Build a tender for the fuel? Easiest.
2 Build a slug that acts as a tender? A little harder.
3 Build a B unit? Hardest.
I think I should do 1 or maybe 2 but with option 3. I'm not quite sure so some other opinions would be helpful. Thanks!
The reason I'm going to use bipolar motors is because the running gear is off scrapped MILW Bipolar Electric units... remember MILW only scrapped the Bipolars because the milwaukee shops did not rebuild the units properly...
Theoretically couldn't flywheels be affixed to both ends of an engine? Doesn't matter but just an academic curiosity...
Generators (or mostly alternators), were pretty much always (read that 100%) driven by the flywheel end of the engine. VERY FEW engines are equipped for power drives on the non-flywheel end.
.
I have only ever seen Shrimp Boats and a few Dredges set up for power output drives on both ends of the crankshaft, and even then, the front power drive is only rated at 30% of maximum engine output. The flywheel end is always rated for 100% of engine output.
There is ZERO advantage to driving alternators off of both the front and rear of the engine. Any engineer would just install a larger alternator and split the power to two different loads.
Anyway, none of this matters at all, because you will not be modeling all the neat stuff under the hood. That is where the motors and decoders will be.
-Kevin
Living the dream.
NWP SWPThis locomotive uses 16 bipolar motors
Why would a diesel engine use ineffecient bi-polar motors rather than regular traction motors?
The model only has four motors but the prototype would've had 16 bipolar motors... Thats why I was addressing the number of engine sounds...
A kitbashed HO Scale locomotive with 4 decoders?! Wow that's a lot of wiring and electronics involved!
16 bipolar motors?! Geez stephen you're really hitting me with stuff today!
This locomotive uses 16 bipolar motors and is going to operate on 2 to 4 percent grades so power demands are through the roof! Four decoders could be pricey! But anythings an option...
One generator or two generators per prime mover wouldn't really change the sound. Really be unlikely any railroad would put two generators on one prime move anyway, 4 diesels each with a generator would be monster power - 6000 or more HP.
Loksound decoders have an adjustment to the prime mover to adjust the exact response. The idea is so that if you ahev 4 locos in consist they all won't throttle up the engine sounds in lock step. But nothing says you couldn't cram 4 decoders and 4 speakers in there and set them up this way, so that all 4 prime movers wouldn't be in perfect sync.
Rod from the club said he would help me install a decoder... how would I get the sound to be like there are four Alco 251Bs with dual generators each inside the unit coming in and out of sync? The unit will have four motors so would two decoders with two speakers each one on each side of the locomotive that way the speaker facing the back of the layout will sound different from the front thereby creating that cycling effect work?