GP 9 : The best diesel ever built?

[oltmannd]

QUOTE: Originally posted by GP40-2

CSX rules4eva said:

"Yes it is true that some of the modern Big Power locomotives are not able to be used as widely as the GP 9 was in terms of high speed passenger service or passenger service in general, this is because of it's low gear rato, which is designed to get more torque, for pulling power rather than useding a high gear ratio in which the locomotive would get more speed. "

The low gear ratio comment is not true. All of CSX's big ACs can cruise at 75 MPH, which is higher than the freight gearing EMD supplied with the orginal GP9.

62:15 gearing gets you 65 or 70 mph on a GP9, depending on how close to the edge you like to live. Not a big difference with the 75 mph AC loco limit.

Passenger gearing on a GP9 would generally get you 90-100 mph - quite a bit faster than 75 mph. Back when GPs were being purchased, many roads still had one or more divisions with train control that allowed operation >79 mph. I think that's what Sarah is talking about.....

[edbenton]

I know I am going to be drawn and quartered on this one. In my opinion the best engine is the U-25-B. Now before you get the rope ready here are my points for it. 1st with a pressuzied air intake system that used a single air filter. 2 pressurized carbody that kept dirt and junk from getting in the motoor in the first place. 3 It had the FDL-16 engine the same engine that with simple changes got all the way up to 4400 HP. 4 The first true second generation unit, without GE coming out with these the GP30 on up would not have come out when it did. GE forced EMD to come out with a better product than it wanted to. GM had gotten lazy on locomotive design. 5 GE went to the railroads and asked them what they wanted in a new engine andgave it to them.

[tree68]

Certainly can't question the points given - they would tend to point toward the U25B furthering the cause of, and improving, the diesel electric. But how many are still on the road?

[PBenham]

I neglected to mention that New Haven bought GP9s in their infamous 1956 diesel order, that almost killed their electrification!

[GP40-2]

QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd

QUOTE: Originally posted by GP40-2

CSX rules4eva said:

"Yes it is true that some of the modern Big Power locomotives are not able to be used as widely as the GP 9 was in terms of high speed passenger service or passenger service in general, this is because of it's low gear rato, which is designed to get more torque, for pulling power rather than useding a high gear ratio in which the locomotive would get more speed. "

The low gear ratio comment is not true. All of CSX's big ACs can cruise at 75 MPH, which is higher than the freight gearing EMD supplied with the orginal GP9.

62:15 gearing gets you 65 or 70 mph on a GP9, depending on how close to the edge you like to live. Not a big difference with the 75 mph AC loco limit.

Passenger gearing on a GP9 would generally get you 90-100 mph - quite a bit faster than 75 mph. Back when GPs were being purchased, many roads still had one or more divisions with train control that allowed operation >79 mph. I think that's what Sarah is talking about.....

Only somewhat true. The "speed limit" on an AC locomotive is not as directly gear-ratio driven as on the GP9. On GE AC's the speed limit is simply a programmable feature in the control computer. Both AC4400's and AC6000's have a traction motor capacity in excess of 110 MPH. However, the thought of a CSX 440,000 lb "rail crusher" AC60CW entering a curve at 110 MPH somewhat scares me...

[Anonymous]

edbenton -

There are a couple of drawbacks to the U-25-b that outweigh all those advantages you list.

First - with that 3-foot 16-notch throttle, they were more than unhandy to run; the GP9 was a very pleasant locomotive to run. Did you ever pick up and set out on line of road with a U-25? No contest, unless you were an octopus.

Second - they'd never load up fast enough to be a good switch engine, which a GP9 would do.
Third - compared to a GP9 with its Blomberg trucks, the U-boat rode like a log wagon.

GE might have gone to the railroads and asked them what they wanted, but they sure didn't ask the guys who were going to have to run them.

Old Timer

[edbenton]

Yes old timer the u-25 had its problems so does everything. Remember the gp-9 had manual transition at first. A 4 stroke never loads as fast as a 2 stroke do to simple mechanics. Yet around here a short line the IL Railnet RETIRED its CF-7 in favor of GE and I talked to a crew the GE actually rides better than the CF-7. But the biggest probelm everyone has with GE is they REPLACED ALCO!!!

[ValleyX]

You think people hate GE because they replaced Alco? I'm aghast.

As for the U-25-B, what a miserable engine to operate and its obvious that you never operated one, you are telling your very best mechanical opinion. That's ok but, as someone already pointed out, how many can you find today?

[oltmannd]

The U25B was inovative, but a miserable locomotive in just about every other respect. A slimy, oily, gooey mess of a locomotive to try to keep running. This thread is about the "best" - which presumably would include every aspect, not just design inovation.

[edbenton]

Yes I have never operarted a u boat however I have worked on both types of engines. The 567 had a nasty habit of leaking water into the crankcase and turning into mayonase not a god thing for main or rod bearings. The fdl on the other hand yes it leaked oil But it would not turn the bearings into so much scarp. It did have its problems and was not the best design when it came out. GE stuck with the same design and model of engine just made improments to it. EMD on the other hand had the 567 a-d series and then the 645 series a-d and now the 710 series and then the H series.

[oltmannd]

The 567 plain, A, and B were terrible leakers. The C engine and up were better. Leaks were detectable by spectro looking for the Chromate after the water boiled off.

[edbenton]

Yes you can find tehm by spectro however how many shops in the back woods have spectro ablity. I pulled wrenches and spectro is nice when you have it. I have seen blocks scored do to water contamination. The biggest issue on early FDL was the gaskets did not seat right. I would take an external oil leak which I can see to oil coolant in the crankcase anyday of teh week.

[arbfbe]

If the GP9 was the best diesel ever built then the GP38-2 must raise the bar even higher. It will do anything the 9 will do and do it better. The downside to a backwoods operation would be the circuit boards instead of hard wiring and relays but the after market can Fed Ex what ever is need to Dismal Seepage, OK whenever needed.

Of course with the right amount of work any GP9 can become a GP38-2 as well.

The U25B as the best diesel ever built? That is laughable. What a piece of rolling junk these units were. The throttles were absolutely uncomfortable to work with, the heaters were built just backwards, the carbodies and cabs leaked air and ratled all the time. Wheel slip reduced their load capabilities measureably and the trucks rode worse than a lumber truck. How GE ever managed to get to the 30 series amazes me. If Alco had not exited the market and the railroads had the option to buy from more than EMD then GE might have gone from the market. It took GE until the -7 series to build a product competitive with what EMD was building and finally the DASH-9 models to get something reliable in service.

[edbenton]

you have to remember when EMD started they had teh Winton 201 as their engine. Give GE credit they took the bull by the horns and jumped in with both feet. At the time they did come in GE was a smaller company than GM. If GM had been smart they could have undercut GE to the point that it would have bankrupted GE. Now the early GE's yed they had probelms but GE got thru them. EMD was getting lazy they did not want to turbo the 567 until forced by UP.

[Anonymous]

The tourist/educational rr I work for uses an ex-B&O GP-9. Next year is its 50th b-day. Its an amazing workhorse. Easy to start, never fails! Comfortable to sit in for 3 or 4 hours on a Saturday or Sunday. Oh, it actually SOUNDS like a locomotive! That "chug" is awesome!

[Anonymous]

Quoth edbenton:

"Remember the gp-9 had manual transition at first."

Not so, eb. Early F-7s and maybe GP-7s had manual transition, but the GP-9 was automatic from the first.

And the leaking propensities of the 567 engines are much overstated by oltmannd, et. al.

The U-25's engines were made originally by Cooper-Bessemer, which sort of threw them together knowing they weren't going to get a long-term contract to build engines for GE. They were unreliable. The same engine, under GE manufacture, was much more reliable. The Wabash had early U-25-bs and all were re-engined when GE took over building the FDLs.

Old Timer

[daveklepper]

Regarding Road Freight Power, only the FT and possibly some F-2's had manual transition. The F-3 had automatic transition and all subsequent F models had it. The GP-7 had automatic transition. I ran one once on the Boston and Maine when I was a test engineer under Ernie Bloss and doing my Bacholor's Thesis at MIT on diesel locomotive load regulator controls. Also at EMD in the summer of 1952 I designed the circuits for reworking the B&O FT's to automatic transition. Other railroads may have used the rework also.

Before the FT was reworked to automatic transition, it could run with later power and did, but had to be the lead locomotive. The engineer would use manual transition on the lead locomotive (usually an FT-A plus FT-B) and the following units would use automatic transition. Obviously, this lacked flexibility, so the B&O asked EMD for a modification package.

Also that summer I got to see (and I think ride in a dynamometer car behind) the F-7 A-B-B-A set that demonstrated on the N&W. Wihtout success at the time. But then seven years later, the N&W was nearly all-diesel with a fleet of .......GP-9's!

[Murphy Siding]

QUOTE: Originally posted by daveklepper


Also that summer I got to see (and I think ride in a dynamometer car behind) the F-7 A-B-B-A set that demonstrated on the N&W. Wihtout success at the time. But then seven years later, the N&W was nearly all-diesel with a fleet of .......GP-9's!

What didn't N&W like about the F-7's, that they did like about the GP-9's?

[oltmannd]

QUOTE: Originally posted by edbenton

Yes you can find tehm by spectro however how many shops in the back woods have spectro ablity. I pulled wrenches and spectro is nice when you have it. I have seen blocks scored do to water contamination. The biggest issue on early FDL was the gaskets did not seat right. I would take an external oil leak which I can see to oil coolant in the crankcase anyday of teh week.

For sure. The lower liner seals on the GEs not a problem?

[edbenton]

Just remembe evreyone has their opion as to which engine is the best it like the ford V chevy or mopar everyone has their opions and beliefs. Every engine has its good points and bad points. EMD designed there for a longer life span. GE is designed for a shorter life to insure that GE gets new orders. The last big seller for EMD was teh sd-40 and all of its sisters now the cycle has come again and the sd70 series is big. GE went to the u-boats and then the dash-7 and then 8's then 9's. EMD every 30 or so years comes out with a huge seller that allows them to float for a few years. GE has a policy keep improving what we do and the customers will keep ordering newer models.

[AztecEagle]

I Concur.The GP7 and GP9 Hauled Freight From The Canadian Arctic to The Yucatan Pennisula in Mexico.The Espee Ran Geeps On The Former T&NO Lines(Sunset Route/Dalsa Line/Shiner Branch)Until 1993.Cabooses Wrere Still On Espee Freights on the Shiner Branch through Flatonia Until '92 or '93.My First Cab Ride Was In A GP 20 Though.

[Anonymous]

Murphy Siding asketh:

"What didn't N&W like about the F-7's, that they did like about the GP-9's?"

Murph - N&W wasn't ready to dieselize in 1952 when the F7s were tested. They were ready in the later 1950s because the cost of running steam locomotives (dollars per gross ton mile per train hour) had finally gotten more than the cost of running diesels.

Maybe you don't realize it - few do - but N&W dieselized for cash - no loans or equipment trusts. This includes servicing and shop facilities. They bought the engines and everything necessary to support them outright.

The only N&W diesels of that era to carry equipment trust plates were a dozen or so GP30s to which the trusts were transferred from the Virginian rectifier electrics, so the rectifiers could be sold.

And the GP9 was a better engine mechanically and electrically than the F7. You'd expect that, with the intervening years. And N&W wouldn't have bought a cab-style unit, anyhow.

Old Timer