Union Pacific E Unit Question

[dharmon]

In one of the threads it was mentioned that when the UP E units were rebuilt, the 567 plants were replaced by a single 645. I looked on the UP web site and this was confirmed. Okay so here are the questions...

1. I have seen photos of E Units that Amtrak had rebuilt with both of the 567s replaced by 645s, why did UP only go with one? Economy? Maintenance? or just being concientious stewards of the share holder's $$s

2. How did they install it? Did it go on the mounts of one motor only or did they center it for weight distribution? Externally they don't appear different from a regular E unit to me....but I could be wrong.

3. I also noticed that they use power cars for steam and/or HEP for their passenger cars. Does this mean that the E unit does not have a steam generator or HEP generator at all?

Thanks

[Anonymous]

Dan [8D]

I left my tape "UP's Elegant E Units" at the farm.

So I am winging it from memory, which isn't a good thing for me to do. lol

I got the idea from watching the tape about them that both UP and VMF rebuilt the E 9s. I imagine VMF did the engine work. On the tape, Steve Lee talks about having to send them back for some warrenty work. If I remember right they were having problems with overheating. But I don't want to stick my foot in my mouth too far here. I believe the units were completely rewired, but not sure which one was responsible for that. The power car you memtioned is used with the 844 and 3985 also. I don't know if there is more than one power car or not. I have seen a power car when either of these engines were here. As far as a steam generator, even VIA has discountinued using steam as heat. Some private cars might still use steam heat but would have their own source for it.

Someone else will have to tackle the other questions. I don't know if Ed has been in these units or not. I do think they have been to Houston. They were here in North Little Rock and I tried to catch them at Jacksonville but managed to miss them. (Just my luck.)

[M636C]

Dan,

The original UP postwar E units had two 12-567B engines and two D15 DC generators (E-8) or two 567C engines driving two D-12 generators (E-9). This gave 1125HP each from the 567B engines and 1200HP from the 567C engines. The use of one alternator instead of two DC generators will be a big saving in maintenance for a start.

Apparently, in the interests of economy and standardisation, it was decided to rebuild the retained units, each with one 2000HP 16-645E engine and an AR10 alternator, and Dash-2 control equipment, so the units were mechanically and electrically the same as a GP38-2. This meant that you halved the number of engines and generators, and improved the reliability, which is important for a train which is mainly used for public relations activities. I think that the reliability requirement was the most important. Also, the B-unit converted from a power car would not have had any engines or generators when obtained.

I have heard these units called "E38-2", which is certainly more correct than "E-9" now!

The original radiators and fans appear to have been retained, but I would think that the exhaust stacks would have moved to the middle of the unit with one engine only. A view from above should show this.

The new engine is longer than the original with 16 cylinders rather than 12, and would have to be located closer to the centre of the unit. It may be in the middle for balance, as you said.

This new arrangement will be less expensive to run than the original two engines, but the improvement in reliability would be UP's intention with the rebuild.

Peter

[M636C]

I didn't say anything about the Amtrak units. These were usually just fitted with 645 pwer assemblies in their original engines, and were not rebuilt as extensively as the UP locomotives. The work was also carried out twenty years earlier, when the original locomotives were in better condition.

Peter

[zardoz]

Reliability was mentioned as a reason to go with one motor instead of two. Perhaps the 'newness' of the single motor could lend to the reliability issue, but having two motors instead of one should give more reliability. Those E units, which were former CNW, were used in Chicago commuter service. Many times there would be a problem with one of the motors; we would just isolate it and keep going with the other (albiet not as fast!). Plus, those E's had lousy traction (due to not all the weight on drivers), had lousy brakes, but rode wonderfully.

[dharmon]

QUOTE: Originally posted by zardoz

Reliability was mentioned as a reason to go with one motor instead of two. Perhaps the 'newness' of the single motor could lend to the reliability issue, but having two motors instead of one should give more reliability. Those E units, which were former CNW, were used in Chicago commuter service. Many times there would be a problem with one of the motors; we would just isolate it and keep going with the other (albiet not as fast!). Plus, those E's had lousy traction (due to not all the weight on drivers), had lousy brakes, but rode wonderfully.

So that being the case, it would seem that they have even less traction now with the weight of only one engine, unless they added weight to compensate and balance it. Kind of like what ATSF did when rebuilding the Ex-Amtrak SDP40Fs into SDF40-2s, putting cement weights in where the steam generators had been.

Okay so the last question....do they have a seperate diesel and generator for HEP, do they tap off the main engine like F40s, or use power cars for hotel services.....(to make sure the UP executives have light to come up with more moeny making schemes [:o)])

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by dharmon

QUOTE: Originally posted by zardoz

Reliability was mentioned as a reason to go with one motor instead of two. Perhaps the 'newness' of the single motor could lend to the reliability issue, but having two motors instead of one should give more reliability. Those E units, which were former CNW, were used in Chicago commuter service. Many times there would be a problem with one of the motors; we would just isolate it and keep going with the other (albiet not as fast!). Plus, those E's had lousy traction (due to not all the weight on drivers), had lousy brakes, but rode wonderfully.

So that being the case, it would seem that they have even less traction now with the weight of only one engine, unless they added weight to compensate and balance it. Kind of like what ATSF did when rebuilding the Ex-Amtrak SDP40Fs into SDF40-2s, putting cement weights in where the steam generators had been.

Okay so the last question....do they have a seperate diesel and generator for HEP, do they tap off the main engine like F40s, or use power cars for hotel services.....(to make sure the UP executives have light to come up with more moeny making schemes [:o)])

Dan [:D]

The power car serves the electrical needs of the consists. I don't remember the E units as rebuilt having HEP.

[jchnhtfd]

QUOTE: Originally posted by zardoz

Reliability was mentioned as a reason to go with one motor instead of two. Perhaps the 'newness' of the single motor could lend to the reliability issue, but having two motors instead of one should give more reliability. Those E units, which were former CNW, were used in Chicago commuter service. Many times there would be a problem with one of the motors; we would just isolate it and keep going with the other (albiet not as fast!). Plus, those E's had lousy traction (due to not all the weight on drivers), had lousy brakes, but rode wonderfully.

Two engine-generator sets would give better reliability than one, if the new engine-generator set were similar or the same[:D]. But... the 645E with the AR10 alternator and Dash 2 electrics is lots more reliable than the 567B or C/ D15 or D12 combo, never mind the differences in the electrics. So the swap makes sense to me...

There's also a maintenance issue: if the thing breaks down in East Overshoe, Iowa, where is Uncle Pete going to find replacement bits for the older combo -- but the newer has so much commonality with the 38's that that shouldn't be a problem (much...[:D])

[dharmon]

QUOTE: Originally posted by jhhtrainsplanes

QUOTE: Originally posted by dharmon

QUOTE: Originally posted by zardoz

Reliability was mentioned as a reason to go with one motor instead of two. Perhaps the 'newness' of the single motor could lend to the reliability issue, but having two motors instead of one should give more reliability. Those E units, which were former CNW, were used in Chicago commuter service. Many times there would be a problem with one of the motors; we would just isolate it and keep going with the other (albiet not as fast!). Plus, those E's had lousy traction (due to not all the weight on drivers), had lousy brakes, but rode wonderfully.

So that being the case, it would seem that they have even less traction now with the weight of only one engine, unless they added weight to compensate and balance it. Kind of like what ATSF did when rebuilding the Ex-Amtrak SDP40Fs into SDF40-2s, putting cement weights in where the steam generators had been.

Okay so the last question....do they have a seperate diesel and generator for HEP, do they tap off the main engine like F40s, or use power cars for hotel services.....(to make sure the UP executives have light to come up with more moeny making schemes [:o)])

Dan [:D]

The power car serves the electrical needs of the consists. I don't remember the E units as rebuilt having HEP.

I just reread your original post......The first time through, I thought you meant that it was only used with the steam locos.......but now having READ it instead of read it ....I get it.

Sorry..bad Dan, bad Dan.........

[zardoz]

QUOTE: Originally posted by dharmon

QUOTE: Originally posted by jhhtrainsplanes

QUOTE: Originally posted by dharmon

QUOTE: Originally posted by zardoz

Reliability was mentioned as a reason to go with one motor instead of two. Perhaps the 'newness' of the single motor could lend to the reliability issue, but having two motors instead of one should give more reliability. Those E units, which were former CNW, were used in Chicago commuter service. Many times there would be a problem with one of the motors; we would just isolate it and keep going with the other (albiet not as fast!). Plus, those E's had lousy traction (due to not all the weight on drivers), had lousy brakes, but rode wonderfully.

So that being the case, it would seem that they have even less traction now with the weight of only one engine, unless they added weight to compensate and balance it. Kind of like what ATSF did when rebuilding the Ex-Amtrak SDP40Fs into SDF40-2s, putting cement weights in where the steam generators had been.

Okay so the last question....do they have a seperate diesel and generator for HEP, do they tap off the main engine like F40s, or use power cars for hotel services.....(to make sure the UP executives have light to come up with more moeny making schemes [:o)])

Dan [:D]

The power car serves the electrical needs of the consists. I don't remember the E units as rebuilt having HEP.

I just reread your original post......The first time through, I thought you meant that it was only used with the steam locos.......but now having READ it instead of read it ....I get it.

Sorry..bad Dan, bad Dan.........

I'm not sure about the units after the UP modified them, but in suburban service the E8's & F7's had a seperate Cummins engine to supply 480v power to the coaches; these were replaced by Detroit diesels in the later years. These engines were located in the back of the unit (set at ninety degrees from the 567's) real close to the back door. This left very little room for a person to walk from the coach to the loco cab--especially for those of us that were of a more 'generous' girth. And those *%$#@&%$ Cummins engines sprayed so much oil into the engine room, that to walk through was to invite your clothes to become oily rags. We were all so glad when Metra bought the F40PH's.

[Anonymous]

Ok here we go since I serviced them after Railfair 99 in Sacramento. The UP E-units have one 16-645 each, mounted centrally in the carbody. None of them have steam generators or HEP. Like what was said earlier, they essecentually (sp) a GP-38. They have also been upgraded from 24L to 26L air brakes. And they have a standard GP-SD style control stand too. If I ever service one of them again it will be too soon. Engine temp. was 180 degrees and outside temp was 103. I lost about 10 pounds while I was changing the fuel and oil filters and also cleaning out the carbon traps. It was a little warm in there !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[espeefoamer]

QUOTE: Originally posted by M636C

Dan,

The original UP postwar E units had two 12-567B engines and two D15 DC generators (E-8) or two 567C engines driving two D-12 generators (E-9). This gave 1125HP each from the 567B engines and 1200HP from the 567C engines. The use of one alternator instead of two DC generators will be a big saving in maintenance for a start.

Apparently, in the interests of economy and standardisation, it was decided to rebuild the retained units, each with one 2000HP 16-645E engine and an AR10 alternator, and Dash-2 control equipment, so the units were mechanically and electrically the same as a GP38-2. This meant that you halved the number of engines and generators, and improved the reliability, which is important for a train which is mainly used for public relations activities. I think that the reliability requirement was the most important. Also, the B-unit converted from a power car would not have had any engines or generators when obtained.

I have heard these units called "E38-2", which is certainly more correct than "E-9" now!

The original radiators and fans appear to have been retained, but I would think that the exhaust stacks would have moved to the middle of the unit with one engine only. A view from above should show this.

The new engine is longer than the original with 16 cylinders rather than 12, and would have to be located closer to the centre of the unit. It may be in the middle for balance, as you said.

This new arrangement will be less expensive to run than the original two engines, but the improvement in reliability would be UP's intention with the rebuild.

Peter

I read at the time of the rebuilding, that they ran the exhaust through the existing stacks to copy the exhaust pattern of the true E9's.

[Anonymous]

Hey Foamer, you are absolutly correct. Unless you read about the rebuild or looked inside, you cant tell from the outside.

[dharmon]

Gentleman,

Thank you very much. I appreciate the info, probably as you appreciate me actually posting about trains on the trains forums once in awhile.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by drailed1999

Ok here we go since I serviced them after Railfair 99 in Sacramento. The UP E-units have one 16-645 each, mounted centrally in the carbody. None of them have steam generators or HEP. Like what was said earlier, they essecentually (sp) a GP-38. They have also been upgraded from 24L to 26L air brakes. And they have a standard GP-SD style control stand too. If I ever service one of them again it will be too soon. Engine temp. was 180 degrees and outside temp was 103. I lost about 10 pounds while I was changing the fuel and oil filters and also cleaning out the carbon traps. It was a little warm in there !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Marty [:)]

You might not believe this but . . . . when I posted and talked about the E units being in Houston and Ed possibly seeing them, I almost included you thinking that maybe you had seen them. But I just wasn't too sure about that and didn't say anything. Thanks for letting us know.

[edblysard]

Hi Jim,
Yes I have seen them, and rode behind them back in 1996, Houston to Corpus Christi, fathers day speical sponsered by the Gulf Coast chapter of the NHRS.
Overnighted at Corpus, back to Houston next day.
Was a blast, especially at crossings, seeing the look on peoples faces when these things went by,
Saw them again about 3 years ago, again in Houston, they were in our yard, running through with a freight train behind them, no passengre cars.
Crew stopped at our tower, to pick up track warrents and slow orders.
The engines were working their way home with a pool crew.
They were having a blast too.
Talked to the hogger, he said the same as big Z, tractions was lousy, but ride was fine.
Quite a few of us just couldnt help it, we had to go look.
Yup, Derailed wasnt kidding, the engine compartment was hotter than ****, but man, the view from the cab was a trip!
I asked where the passenger consist was, the hogger said they had picked up the motors in Sugarland, the passenger cars were left in a sideing, the 3985 was taking them for a run somewhere.
Said the E units where going home, and that they regularly ran small freight behind them when needed.

Would love to come up with a way to get a set for myself, those are classy looking locomotives.
Stay frosty,
Ed

[Anonymous]

Hey Jim, [8D]

They had a sign made by the RR museum for the Railfair left in the cab with the specs. on it. NOT ANYMORE. LOL [:-^] Also the crowning glory after doing its service was getting to hostle them over to our departure yard. [bow]

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by drailed1999

Hey Jim, [8D]

They had a sign made by the RR museum for the Railfair left in the cab with the specs. on it. NOT ANYMORE. LOL [:-^] Also the crowning glory after doing its service was getting to hostle them over to our departure yard. [bow]

Marty [8D]


Quick delete your post. [}:)]

And then take the fifth [;)]

Not a fifth, THE FIFTH [:p]

As Seargent Shults would say, "I know nothing, N O T H I N G."

Sign, What Sign? Did anyone see a sign? Well, I didn't think so. [;)]

[Anonymous]

HI D a n [^]

When the 3985 was here I took a pic of the power car [:)] .

Actually it was the first pic I took that day of the train. [:D]

I am emailing it to you. [;)]

Should anyone else like to see it just email me and I will be happy to share it (or others) with you.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by jhhtrainsplanes

HI D a n [^]

When the 3985 was here I took a pic of the power car [:)] .

Actually it was the first pic I took that day of the train. [:D]

I am emailing it to you. [;)]

Should anyone else like to see it just email me and I will be happy to share it (or others) with you.

Like I said, I have a pic of the power car if you have not seen it or seen one. Just email me and I will send you a pic of it. [;)]

[dharmon]

QUOTE: Originally posted by jhhtrainsplanes

QUOTE: Originally posted by jhhtrainsplanes

HI D a n [^]

When the 3985 was here I took a pic of the power car [:)] .

Actually it was the first pic I took that day of the train. [:D]

I am emailing it to you. [;)]

Should anyone else like to see it just email me and I will be happy to share it (or others) with you.

Like I said, I have a pic of the power car if you have not seen it or seen one. Just email me and I will send you a pic of it. [;)]

Got your pic thanks. Now I understand the concept....its an APU on flanged wheels...

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by dharmon

QUOTE: Originally posted by jhhtrainsplanes

QUOTE: Originally posted by jhhtrainsplanes

HI D a n [^]

When the 3985 was here I took a pic of the power car [:)] .

Actually it was the first pic I took that day of the train. [:D]

I am emailing it to you. [;)]

Should anyone else like to see it just email me and I will be happy to share it (or others) with you.

Like I said, I have a pic of the power car if you have not seen it or seen one. Just email me and I will send you a pic of it. [;)]

Got your pic thanks. Now I understand the concept....its an APU on flanged wheels...

Dan [:D]


You shouldn't make me laugh this hard this early in the morning. [:p] [:D] [;)]

It would be more appropriate to say it is the GPU. [;)] [}:)] [8D] [:)] [:D]

[Anonymous]

It seems counter-intuitive, but one diesel engine in a locomotive makes it more reliable than two engines.

Consider it mathematically: suppose a diesel engine fails unexpectedly once every 1000 hours of operation, and when it fails, it must immediately be pulled from service and go to the shop, where it requires 50 hours of repair, including transit time to and from the shop. Because the failures are unexpected, they are random. They will occur at exactly the same time only once in every 1000 failures (on a one-hour basis) -- or for all practical purposes, never at the same time. Thus we can reasonably expect the locomotive to be out of service 100 hours in every 1000. If the locomotive has one engine with the same failure rate, it will be out of service only 50 hours in every 1000.

This is why the double-diesel was never a favorable solution and only existed when there was no practical way to get the desired horsepower in a single unit with one engine. This is also why the HEP set in a passenger locomotive is preferred over individual HEP sets on each car, and why a gearbox-driven HEP set is preferred over a separate diesel-generator set. The fewer engines you have, the fewer things there are to break, the fewer filters you have to replace, etc., etc. Your locomotive and cars will be available to do work more often.

What the double-diesel DOES give you is some ability to limp in when one of its engines fails. But that is not the same thing as reliability. There is a point of diminishing returns: if the failure rate is high enough, you want to have two- or three- engine trains so you don't tie up the main line with dead trains. But today, locomotives have become so much more reliable than 30 years ago that one-locomotive trains are commonplace, even on busy single-track main lines.

As Peter would tell you, steam-turbine driven warships often have two or three boilers (a high maintenance item) under the expectation that one of them will always be down for repairs or in standby mode for when the other fails. One boiler will be sufficient for cruising speed, and in fact, both boilers on line for full speed will deplete the fuel at four times the cruising speed speed rate, or worse. In a war emergency, you hope to have both available and on-line for high maneuvering speed. But even in World War II, the total number of battle hours in which a destroyer or cruiser needed all boilers on line was maybe four or five hours a month. In other words, the ship is designed for single-screw, one boiler, one turbine operation as "normal," and two-screw, two-boiler, two-turbine operation as "war emergency." In simple terms.

[dharmon]

Mark,

Thanks for clarifying the 2 engine vs 1 question. I presumed that it was a question more of trying to double the horsepower using availible technology of the time than a reliability issue...although it proabably is now for those units still using the two plants.

As for ships though, any time there could be a need for all power, all boilers or plants are up and going, or at least in standby. it's not just battle conditions, but restricted manuevering, underway replenishement, flight ops, docking and getting underway. Any operation that the loss of a plant could have a major impact....so having it all up is more frequent than just a few hours. A carrier just steaming along may have a plant down, but before flight ops commence and until they end for the day, both plants will be up unless a casualty exists. Because any steam plants have a longer start up time, that extra time will also have to be factored in. As far as carriers go at least, they generally do not trail shafts unless a good reason exists, so even when transiting or loitering, all four are going. Locking/un locking a shaft generally requires stopping the ship to do without damaging the reduction gearbox, and a trailing shaft still requires auxilary support ...ie lube oil pumps still have to be run to support it as long as its spinning. So its not done very often. Less trouble and wear and tear on the RGB to run all four shafts and turbines from one plant than to split the plants and shut two shafts down. Thats carriers though.

[M636C]

I'd better rejoin this discussion after Mark referred to me again. First, I'm amazed that UP connected the new engine to the original exhausts. I don't have much experience with big steam plants like the USN carriers, but I believe that our steam frigates usually locked one shaft and cruised on the other. I believe that current USN (gas turbine)cruisers and destroyers trail a shaft, rather than locking it. This may relate to the type and position of clutch and the gearbox, and they may have been designed to allow this.

For Mark, I attended a lecture by Norman Friedman last Tuesday, and discussed the (1908 USN) Great White Fleet and the effect on the RAN which was started three years later.

There are exceptions to everything, and the EMD-Henschel model KK-16, for Egypt, was built as a double ended unit (an F unit cab on each end) but with two eight cylinder engines. It was laid out like an E-8. This was intended to allow the loco to "limp in" with one engine. They are long gone, a victim of the maintenance standards that resulted in their design. Egypt now relies on boxcabs using SD39-2 machinery, probably proving the point about single engines.

Peter

[dharmon]

M636C,

I will admit that my fleet experience on gas turbines is neglible. I work with a CRUDES (cruiser/destroyer) guy at work and will ask him how they do business. This has peaked my interest. I do know that when a LM2500 ship is doing plane guard they have to have both shafts up and going to stay with the carrier sprinting to "create" wind, and to be able to crashback if a bird goes in the drink. But for them, bringing an engine up or down is minutes, not hours.

I think i've seen one of the Egyptian engines you are talking about. It was in the mid-Ninties. Dusty, beat up, blowing smoke like all get out. I thought it was a derivative of an F unit until I saw it had cabs at both ends. I wouldn't say it was limping..it was crawling.

[Anonymous]

Peter, you get all the fun!

According to John Jordan, "Modern U.S. Navy," USN Spruance class destroyers and Ticonderoga class cruisers (which have the same hull and propulsion) generally trail one of their two shafts at cruise speed in the interests of fuel economy. These are 2-shaft COCAG ships with four LM2500 gas turbines. All recent USN frigates are single-shaft; the Perry class with two LM2500 gas turbines and the earlier Knox, Garcia and Bronstein class with steam plants.

[Anonymous]

You've seen the book: The Yard : Building a Destroyer at the Bath Iron Works
by Michael S. Sanders? Fascinating book, following the Arleigh Burke DDG Donald S. Cook from keel through commission. I learned a lot about how warships are built and worked up.

[M636C]

dharmon

The FFGs have two electrically driven APUs forward, aft of the sonar dome, both of which retract flush with the hull. I believe they were intended as emergency propulsion units and have no control of power, being either "on" or "off". I believe they are used together for docking, starting with them trained port and starboard 180 degrees apart,
and then one or other is rotated to give a nett thrust in the desired direction.

The RAN Frigates I was quoting were to a British design, generally known as "Type 12", and had a steam plant of 30 000 SHP on two shafts. The New Zealanders still operate one named "Canterbury". We see it in Sydney from time to time.

We (the RAN) are talking about fitting the last four of our FFGs with SM-2. We are already upgrading the electronics, and the drawings show eight Mk 41 cells forward of the GMLS-13. They were intended for quad pac Evolved Sea Sparrow. I assume SM-2 will involve more cells in place of the GMLS-13, and we'll have to buy canisters for the Harpoons.

There were other simpler double cab EMDs in Egypt, with both 16-567 and 12-567 engines. If you're interested, I wrote an article for an English magazine on those and the European double cabs. I could send you a photocopy. I visited Cairo in 1991, but didn't see any double cabs. They had standard export G8s and G12s. The G8s were painted red and white, and the G12s were dark blue. They were so dirty you couldn't tell them apart! The wheelslip protection didn't work, either.

Peter

[Anonymous]

What's that got to do with E-units??????[#offtopic] Gentlemen please ????