If ever there were a jaunty looking road switcher it has to be the Russian ТЭМ14-0001.
Three good photos:
http://avp23649.livejournal.com/37666.html
http://trainpix.org/photo/19932/
http://trainpix.org/photo/30049/
The Russian railroad system seems to prefer cab units, but there is also an Alco inspired road switcher design in use. I am not sure how they justify them. In any case, this seems to be something new. Apparently they run these locomotives long hood forward, and leave the short hood high. Or perhaps they are just omnidirectional. But in the parade thread video, one is seen entering the viewing stage long hood forward. There is something about this Russian locomotive design that whispers “1958 Packard.”
This locomotive uses the slanted “export style” cab roof, but interestingly, the cab sides also taper inward from an elevation matching the top of the handrail. The cab doors and their windows also taper to match the cab shape.
Note that the guardrails system has an extra horizontal member midway from the walkway to the handrail. I notice that the front roof ladders are blocked from use. Perhaps that is a safety measure for running in electrified territory. There appears to be a decal under that ladder rungs warning of that hazard.
The pilot details are similar to U.S. practice with their ditch lights, M.U. sockets, a variety of air hoses, and the pass-through walkway. Note that they eschew end footboards per North American practice.
The engine hood also has an interesting inward side taper near the top. I assume that the little louvered snout protruding out from the sides high near the cab is the dynamic brake air intake. What is most curious is the extra height of the hood in its mid-section. That must be to accommodate the extra height of the prime mover. I wonder why they decided not to simply have the entire locomotive that tall. I guess they did not need the space and did not want to have the center of gravity any higher than necessary.
The extra tall engine compartment suggests the possibility of the use of the Fairbanks Morse opposed piston diesel engine. See: http://www.fairbanksmorsenuclear.com/engine_opposed-piston.php
Early generation FM locomotives featured distinctive hoods that matched the height of the cab for the purpose of accommodating the extra tall FM opposed piston engine.
See: http://www.toytrains1.com/fairbanksmorse.htm
The most unusual aspect of this Russian locomotive is its trucks. Four-axle trucks are rather uncommon. Or maybe that is two four-wheel trucks with some type of span bolster. That too would be unusual. I wonder if all four axles are powered, and if they each have a traction motor. If so, I wonder what the targeted purpose for this locomotive model is.
One detail that I do not understand about Russian locomotives is the control device in the cab that looks like some sort of steering wheel. From watching some videos, I get the impression that the control device is the throttle. But it seems that the engineer will often make several changes to it in a very short period of time, so it is a mystery to me.
I wonder what appears to be cctv cameras are for? There is one at the top of the short hood looking down and one on the long hood just behind the ( or is it in front) cab looking along the hood.
Those trucks looks way too complex. I would like to see an explanation of what all those springs and rods are there for, what do they do? Looks like a maintaince nightmare, to me anyway.
Dvuhdizelny shunting locomotive TEM14. Energy-efficient locomotive designed for shunting, shunting-export, hump of the stations and the backbone of the light on the railways of 1520 mm in temperate climates.
Project partner - Ministry of Industry and Trade of the Russian Federation.
The prototype was created July 4, 2011. Serial production since 2012.
This link opens an advertising brochure (PDF) which has a page about this locomotive:
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=locomotive+TEM14&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CDUQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fswissrailportal.com%2Fp%2Falbums%2Fuserpics%2F10001%2F04_Anton_Zubichin_Gruppe_SINARA.pdf&ei=_8OdUODbN4jNiwLL84Aw&usg=AFQjCNGByf4yim7fwcvGcY2hFAeXt0ky0A
I tried to sell my two cents worth, but no one would give me a plug nickel for it.
I don't have a leg to stand on.
Rikers Yard I wonder what appears to be cctv cameras are for? There is one at the top of the short hood looking down and one on the long hood just behind the ( or is it in front) cab looking along the hood. Those trucks looks way too complex. I would like to see an explanation of what all those springs and rods are there for, what do they do? Looks like a maintaince nightmare, to me anyway.
The LION wonders about the trucks. Those will not be cameras but rather lights for working between the units. There is a narrow platform there, or so it appears to me.
ROAR
The Route of the Broadway Lion The Largest Subway Layout in North Dakota.
Here there be cats. LIONS with CAMERAS
GOOD LORD HAVE MERCY!!! Somebody must have broken about 468 ugly sticks on that beast. Compared to that thing, a 1958 Packard looked like Marilyn Monroe . . . naked. The old style U.S. military trucks ("deuce-and-a-halfs") look like the Dallas Cowboys cheerleaders compared to the thing. HOWEVER - - - I would like to be the spring salesman servicing that account; even with a small commission on each spring sold, if a respectable number of those monsters were made, one could retire rich.
The only reason I can think of for four wheel trucks is to spread out the locomotive's weight on lines with light rail, very smart if they're looking to export the unit to third-world countries, or run it themselves on their own older branch line.
Ugly? Oh yeah, but remember the Russians T-34 tank was pretty ugly as well, and it kicked some serious butt on the Eastern Front during World War Two. Don't underestimate the Russians, they don't get it right all the time, no one does, but most of the time they know exactly what they're doing and have good reasons for same.
mmmmm...what got me were the trucks as well. Great looking things those.
One question..the loco on the back of the consist on http://trainpix.org/photo/30049/...looks very much like a Krauss-Maffei type cab scenario....doesn't it?
Any argument carried far enough will end up in Semantics--Hartz's law of rhetoric Emerald. Leemer and Southern The route of the Sceptre Express Barry
I just started my blog site...more stuff to come...
http://modeltrainswithmusic.blogspot.ca/
SALfanGOOD LORD HAVE MERCY!!! Somebody must have broken about 468 ugly sticks on that beast. Compared to that thing, a 1958 Packard looked like Marilyn Monroe . . . naked. The old style U.S. military trucks ("deuce-and-a-halfs") look like the Dallas Cowboys cheerleaders compared to the thing. HOWEVER - - - I would like to be the spring salesman servicing that account; even with a small commission on each spring sold, if a respectable number of those monsters were made, one could retire rich.
Road switchers are supposed to have that burly, no-nonsense look of functionality; completely opposite the innocent, wimpy look of passenger engines. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Aesthetically, you would have to admit that our modern safety cabs are nothing to write home about.
No, I think the TEM14 is way out front on this. But the critics will have to grow into accepting them. It’s like that with anything that is truly revolutionary.
It's 4 axles per truck, not 4 wheels. Does anyone know what the total unit weight is, and the resulting per-axle load with these 8 axles ? One could then figure out the likely equivalent for 4 and 6 axles.
I wonder what the Russians would say about the 4-axle trucks under our 1960's-era EMD DD40AX - see: http://www.thedieselshop.us/Data%20EMD%20DDA40X.HTML - and GE U50D (actually B+B - B+B) - see: http://www.thedieselshop.us/GE%20U50.HTML - models ? ( But this is consistent with the Soviets copying our locomotive designs about 50 years later . . .)
I do like the body style and paint scheme - kind of reminds me of a GP38 on steroids in an early Providence & Worcester color scheme !
- Paul North.
Paul,
It is about 180 tons, and 2400 hp. When I mentioned four wheel trucks, I was referring to a pair of four wheel trucks with a span bolster, intending to mean that arrangement under each end of the locomotive; or 4 four-wheel trucks total. I can’t tell by looking at them how the truck frames are configured.
I would not conclude that picking the D-D wheel arrangement amounts to copying the EMD and GE units with that wheel arrangement. In fact, looking at the Russian locomotive, I don’t think it looks like they copied anything. Quite the contrary indeed.
According to the Specs is is an A0 A0 + A0 A0 or some nomenclature similar to that. One motor per pair if I read that correctly, probably the inboard wheels with the outboard wheels of each truck being for weight bearing and tracking.
The CCTV cameras are activated when the horn is sounded, they are for grade crossing videos, we have the same cameras on our MK1500Ds, mounted on the cab roof, one facing each direction.
Note the cameras on the fireman/conductors side on the roof.
Ours turn on when the bell or horn is sounded, record for 10 seconds, (longer if the horn is sounded again during that ten seconds) and record to a small thumb drive...you can plug it into your laptop and play.
23 17 46 11
Nice, but the cameras on the Russian units were aimed down at the coupler. That is why the LION thought that they were lights. Whatever they by, they are not on the manufacturer's specs but were added later. It may be so the engineer can see what is happening with the couplers. This is why the LION thought that they were lights. Aftermarket lights would also be of the Home Depot variety.
You are correct in thinking they are aftermarket…the “builders photo” shows them absent, but the other two photos show them mounted…not being familiar with Russian crew consists or work rules, the rear camera may be aimed down so the engineer can watch as he couples up…the gathering range on those couplers is not as wide as the American Janney coupler.
Most of these are aftermarket; the builders have no idea what computer operating system the carrier will use, or where they want the cameras mounted.
Both GE and EMD do offer forward facing cameras mounted in the cab front window, which downloads to the event recorder, but they don’t offer the coverage these type do.
We had a pair of locomotives being exported to Russia on flats down here a few months ago, I got a up close look at those couplers, the gathering range is small.
And the coupler is a solid piece, no movable knuckle, the pin is a Tee shaped part that fits into the outside face of the opposing coupler, you can see it in the second photo on the rear coupler..
Basically, the two knuckles slide past each other and interlock, and the pins slide into the side of the knuckles, locking them in place, for the modelers out there, they work almost like the N scale factory couplers.
Lifting the cut leaver extracts the pins from the sides of the couplers, allowing them to separate.
I have seen a you tube vid showing these couplers in action, and it looks like it was shot from a camera mounted just like the rear one shown here, I will see if I can find it for you.
Not the one I was looking for, but it shows the couplers and how they work.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l_I4G92CAco
BroadwayLionAccording to the Specs is is an A0 A0 + A0 A0 or some nomenclature similar to that. One motor per pair if I read that correctly, probably the inboard wheels with the outboard wheels of each truck being for weight bearing and tracking.ROAR
Lyon,
I think you are right that the locomotive has a total of four traction motors. The builder calls the wheel arrangement 20 + 20 – 20 + 20. I think we would call it A1 + A1 – A1 + A1. However, I wonder if that actually truly indicates which axles are powered. Their designation may actually be referring to what would technically be called 20 + 02 – 20 + 02, or 02 + 20 – 02 + 20 (depending on what axles are powered).
In any case, it is not D-D wheel arrangement.
I interpret the stated wheel arrangement to mean each end of the locomotive is supported by two 4-wheel trucks with one axle of each truck powered and the other an idler axle to carry and distribute part of the weight.
The large prominent beam appearing on the side of this double truck complex is the side beam of a span bolster. I assume that both side beams are connected together with cross pieces, but those are hidden from view. The entire span bolster pivots horizontally on the bolster pivot boss of the locomotive main frame. Then each of the two 4-wheel trucks have truck bolsters that pivot horizontally on the pivot bosses of the span bolster.
It seems to me that this is going one step beyond the A1A-A1A wheel arrangement and adding one additional idler axle per truck. But this takes it beyond the curve-negotiating ability of a rigid 4-axle truck frame, hence the double trucks and span bolster.
That explanation is what first occurs to me, but I cannot be thoroughly convinced by what I see. I would not expect to see the span bolster having two sides that are outside of the trucks. I would expect the span bolster to be hidden between the truck frames. And the big side beams of each 4-axle set taper down to a point at each end. That would seem to preclude any structural cross piece connecting the ends of the side beams. Moreover, the side beams are loaded directly at their tops apparently directly from the locomotive side sills. That would preclude the side beams from being a part of a bolster that pivots horizontally. So I am a bit nonplussed.
While we are given the wheel arrangement of this locomotive, I can only speculate on the truck and suspension details. Perhaps someone here can dig up the technical explanation in photos, drawings, and English text.
My guess is that this truck and suspension system is totally unique and unprecedented in any other railroad practice in the world.
It appears that the objective is to create a “light-footed” locomotive for track built with relatively light rail. This locomotive is nominally 5-foot-gage, so I wonder how light of rail they use on tracks of that gage. Their axle loading is already less than U.S. standards. This TEM14 locomotive weighs 11.25 tons per wheel. How light can rail be and still handle that weight?
Looking at the Brochure, the TEM14 uses 2 engines. Might this be the first genset type locomotive built for the Russian market? The sales information refers to a fuel savings of 20%
"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock
Looks like our Russian railroad relatives like to use red reflective decals on the rear and front, but not the sides.
Wonder why?
It's been fun. But it isn't much fun anymore. Signing off for now.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.t fun any
I think the dapperness stems from more than just the paint job, although I do prefer that mostly black color scheme to their common red and gray. But aside from colors, to my eye, this Russian TEM14 locomotive has a decidedly “Steam Punk” style to it.
Earlier, I speculated that this locomotive had a tall hood to accommodate a Fairbanks Morse opposed piston diesel engine. The Russian railroads seem to have relied for a long time on the ubiquitous 2TE10M road locomotives as seen here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jLaFONd6ecs&feature=related
And here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wEETEOcQW90&feature=related
The 2TE10M locomotives do use a Fairbanks Morse opposed piston diesel engine, or at least a pattern of it. The FM OP engine was always described as making a drumming sound. Baldwin diesel locomotives made a burbling sound.
However, the jaunty TEM14 that is the subject of this thread apparently does not use the FM opposed piston engine. As mentioned above by carnej1, the spec sheet calls out two diesel engine prime movers, presumably, each with its own generator or alternator. This locomotive is promoted for extraordinary fuel efficiency, so it would be interesting to learn the theory behind that and how it relates to the use of twin engines.
It would also be interesting to see what the engines look like and if they require the hood to be extra tall or if there is some other reason. I don’t suppose they want to pop the hood though and let all their secrets out. You never know who might copy them.
Bucyrus I think the dapperness stems from more than just the paint job, although I do prefer that mostly black color scheme to their common red and gray. But aside from colors, to my eye, this Russian TEM14 locomotive has a decidedly “Steam Punk” style to it. Earlier, I speculated that this locomotive had a tall hood to accommodate a Fairbanks Morse opposed piston diesel engine. The Russian railroads seem to have relied for a long time on the ubiquitous 2TE10M road locomotives as seen here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jLaFONd6ecs&feature=related And here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wEETEOcQW90&feature=related The 2TE10M locomotives do use a Fairbanks Morse opposed piston diesel engine, or at least a pattern of it. The FM OP engine was always described as making a drumming sound. Baldwin diesel locomotives made a burbling sound. However, the jaunty TEM14 that is the subject of this thread apparently does not use the FM opposed piston engine. As mentioned above by carnej1, the spec sheet calls out two diesel engine prime movers, presumably, each with its own generator or alternator. This locomotive is promoted for extraordinary fuel efficiency, so it would be interesting to learn the theory behind that and how it relates to the use of twin engines. It would also be interesting to see what the engines look like and if they require the hood to be extra tall or if there is some other reason. I don’t suppose they want to pop the hood though and let all their secrets out. You never know who might copy them.
Certainly blowing enough smoke to be a F-M opposed piston design - at least from my memories of working with them.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Bucyrus [snipped - PDN] It appears that the objective is to create a “light-footed” locomotive for track built with relatively light rail. This locomotive is nominally 5-foot-gage, so I wonder how light of rail they use on tracks of that gage. Their axle loading is already less than U.S. standards. This TEM14 locomotive weighs ten tons per wheel. How light can rail be and still handle that weight?
That's not far off from the MILW's SDL39's - 250,000 lbs. on 6 axles, or 41,700 lbs. per axle, 20,850 lbs. per wheel. That would also be consistent with cars with gross weights of 168,000 lbs. or 84 tons, or about a 50-ton net payload capacity car.
The rail weight/ size is not the only or even the determinative factor in handling these axle loads. Rail as light as 65 or 70 lbs. could handle this kind of load - provided that the ties are in good condition, and the subgrade is pretty firm. These latter factors influence the stress in and deflection of the rail as much as its size/ strength itself. Actually, I suspect the light axle loading is more a concession to soft permafrost and/ or other soil / subgrade conditions in the likely markets for this machine, than a concern over lightweight rails there.
Paul_D_North_Jr Not to split hairs, but in a previous post on this thread you stated that the gross weight was 180 tons (360,000 lbs. ?), which would be 22.5 tons (45,000 lbs.) per axle, 11.25 tons (22,500 lbs.) per wheel. That's not far off from the MILW's SDL39's - 250,000 lbs. on 6 axles, or 41,700 lbs. per axle, 20,850 lbs. per wheel. That would also be consistent with cars with gross weights of 168,000 lbs. or 84 tons, or about a 50-ton net payload capacity car. The rail weight/ size is not the only or even the determinative factor in handling these axle loads. Rail as light as 65 or 70 lbs. could handle this kind of load - provided that the ties are in good condition, and the subgrade is pretty firm. These latter factors influence the stress in and deflection of the rail as much as its size/ strength itself. Actually, I suspect the light axle loading is more a concession to soft permafrost and/ or other soil / subgrade conditions in the likely markets for this machine, than a concern over lightweight rails there.
Not to split hairs, but in a previous post on this thread you stated that the gross weight was 180 tons (360,000 lbs. ?), which would be 22.5 tons (45,000 lbs.) per axle, 11.25 tons (22,500 lbs.) per wheel.
Another reminder that while I know a little bit about Civil Engineering, there's a lot that I don't know.
Thanks for the interesting insight about the why of the light axle loading. FWIW, axle loading has been of interest since reading a Bull Session article on axle laoding in a ca 1965 issue of Model Railroader.
- Erik
Paul explined one of my thoughts, about why the light axle loading was needed in the first place. I had simply presumed that the Russians had a lot of subpar trackage. I was thinkg of the Milwauke SDL39's as well. Why would you want only half the axles powered? Wouldn't that cut tractive effort right in half? It seems like an attractive alternative would be to replace one of these units with two B-B trucked units. The Russian unit has two motors. Wouldn't this be simply a sequel to UP's double locomotives of the 1960's?
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
Murphy Siding Paul explined one of my thoughts, about why the light axle loading was needed in the first place. I had simply presumed that the Russians had a lot of subpar trackage. I was thinkg of the Milwauke SDL39's as well. Why would you want only half the axles powered? Wouldn't that cut tractive effort right in half? It seems like an attractive alternative would be to replace one of these units with two B-B trucked units. The Russian unit has two motors. Wouldn't this be simply a sequel to UP's double locomotives of the 1960's?
It's the same reason that Baldwin, Alco & EMD (for Canadian/export units) offered A-1-A trucks as an option on early roadswitcher models. The extra axles are there to allow operation on very light rail.
According the the manufacturer's promotional brochure, the unit is set up to run as a Genset i.e one engine on for low power apllications and both on for higher tractive effort. So it's not like a DD40aX but rather similiar to the multi- engine roadswitcher's being built by NRE/Wabtec/Progress Rail..
I thought the A-1-A trucks in the early road switchers were for lowering axle loadings, but also because a good way had not been perfected to make all three axles powered. Milwaukee could have ordered their light axle branchline switchers as A-1-A, but chose C-C instead. In a locomotive designed for switching, wouldn't you want more tractive effort?
Murphy Siding I thought the A-1-A trucks in the early road switchers were for lowering axle loadings, but also because a good way had not been perfected to make all three axles powered. Milwaukee could have ordered their light axle branchline switchers as A-1-A, but chose C-C instead. In a locomotive designed for switching, wouldn't you want more tractive effort?
Yes, I think you would want all axles powered, especially on a locomotive not intended for high speed, but for heavy pulling instead.
The brochure on the TEM14 says this:
“The TEM14 diesel-electric shunter is designed for heavy-duty gravity shunting and moving operation.”
The wheel arrangement is stated as: 2O + 2O-2O + 2O. Do we know for sure that that means four powered axles and four idler axles? I am not sure what it means. Each designation of “2O” refers to two axles and four wheels. I am not convinced that this locomotive does not have all axles powered.
The paint color scheme used on the TEM14 is widely referred to as the “Black Cardinal.”
Here is a view of the control stand:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/62107343@N04/7122102635/in/set-72157629171163581
Alco rebuilt a number of RS-1s with CC trucks(not A1A) for overseas service (primarily on the Trans- Iranian railway) during WWII. The first such conversions were done in 1942.
Postwar Alco and Baldwin offered their roadswitcher designs in BB,CC and A-1-A versions for different railroads requirements..
The "Black Cardinal" was designed (by a private company,not the Russian Government) for the Russian market(and possible neighboring areas), their operations are somewhat different than those in North America..
I understand what you're saying, that the builder would probably put whatever truck arrangement the railroad wanted under the locomotive. I just don't understand who would want a switcher locomotive with only half the axles powered. Can anyone explain the need for span bolsters connecting the pairs of trucks?
Murphy SidingI just don't understand who would want a switcher locomotive with only half the axles powered.
This TEM14 locomotive has all axles powered. Earlier, someone speculated that the wheel arrangement designation stated as 2O + 2O - 2O + 2O in the manufacture’s spec sheet meant that half the axles were unpowered.
However, the designation of 2O (two zero) means this: Two axles powered, and zero axles unpowered. It amounts to what we would call a B truck. In U.S. terms, this locomotive would have a wheel arrangement of B+B – B+B.
That means that each end of the locomotive rides on two individual trucks, each with its own independent truck frame.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.