http://www.trainweb.org/southwestshorts/russian.html
I have been inside these guys, they were on the PTRA’s Brown lead stored for a long time, very primitive inside.
The bar on the side of the trucks is an equalizer, the purpose of it is to keep the trucks from rocking up and down in excess…it forces the lead wheels on, say the trailing truck, downward when the lead truck moves up.
On bad track, it will slow the up and down “harmonic rock” effect of the trucks bouncing across a dip, or bouncing on a high spot.
It also slows the side to side sway or harmonic rocking of the body.
Dampers would be a better term I guess.
23 17 46 11
From Googling around the web, it would seem that the locomotive in question is a Genset style rebuild of an older TEM-7a locomotive. That model is a Soviet era roadswicher built in large numbers and originally had a 12 cylinder 2,000 HP V-12. The rebuilt unit has double gensets. The core locomotive uses 4 B trucks, all motored, so unless the rebuilding made major changes to the trucks it does have all 8 axles powered.
As an interesting aside, in the early 90's a Texas based commodities broker excepted a number of TEM-7a's as pavement from the Russians for export grain. These were stored for many years at the Port of Houston but no North American buyer could be found. I believe they all went to scrap early this Century:
"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock
Just to clarify a bit: The trucks do not attach directly to the locomotive frame. They attach to the span bolster, and the span bolster attaches to the locomotive frame.
The span bolster and the two trucks all pivot with the pivot swing in a horizontal plane. That is, their pivot axes, or pivot pins are positioned vertically.
I suppose the span bolsters can accommodate some rocking motion fore and aft, and side-to-side, in addition to their pivoting in the horizontal plane. There is that same type of action of the body relative to the trucks with a normal locomotive or freight car. The pivot bearing is loose enough to accommodate the rocking motion.
Here is a good explanation including a drawing of a military gun with railroad wheels using span bolsters.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Span_bolster
Here is a heavy haul car with each end riding on four trucks. The four trucks use a main span bolster that rides atop two secondary span bolsters. And those secondary span bolsters ride atop the trucks. The main span bolster has the draft gear and coupler mounted on its end, so it extends further out beyond the two end trucks
http://www.flickr.com/photos/alcomike/3433929307/
Here is a locomotive with the same span bolster arrangement as the TEM14
http://nick86235.smugmug.com/Trains/Away-Fixtures-2007-chasing/17789124_zLpGHg/1359194725_RXm4s76#!i=1359197007&k=LS3p8tT
On the TEM14, what is unique is the large prominent beam outside of the trucks. Typically the span bolster is mostly hidden because its width is confined within the track gage. The beam on the outside of the Russian locomotive appears to be an extension of the span bolster in order to give it support and suspension from the side sill of the locomotive frame. With that feature, they may actually have a more complex center bearing, such as a ball joint, to accommodate the rocking and pitching motion that I mentioned above. If that is the case, this would seem to be a highly advanced locomotive truck system.
Thanks both of you for the explanation. Each pair of B-B trucks has one pivot point to the frame- kind of like on an HO locomotive. The span bolster picots where it meets the truck. But, that pivot is in the up & down direction? As I picture it, the span bolster is connected to both trucks. As such, wouldn't that make the set of B-B trucks the same length on each side, so it acts, and pivots just like a D truck, but able to pivot up and down on uneven track?
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
Bucyrus The shorter the rigid wheel base of each truck, the sharper the curves that can be negotiated. In order to permit this locomotive to negotiate tight curves, it uses a pair of individual B trucks at each end rather than one D truck having a continuous truck frame and rigid wheel base.
The shorter the rigid wheel base of each truck, the sharper the curves that can be negotiated. In order to permit this locomotive to negotiate tight curves, it uses a pair of individual B trucks at each end rather than one D truck having a continuous truck frame and rigid wheel base.
The Illinois Terminal four truck electric locomotives were capable of negotiating some ridiculously tight curves, seem to recall 50' radius or sharper.
- Erik
Following what Paul said, I offer this about the span bolsters:
If you study the geometry of using four independent trucks under a locomotive, you can see that you cannot simply attach each truck to the locomotive frame with its own pivoting bolster bearing. Each end of the locomotive can only have one pivotal truck attachment point. So the pair of individual trucks has to attach to that one pivot point on the locomotive frame.
At each end of the locomotive: the span bolster is used to bridge the two independent trucks and then the center of that bridge attaches to the locomotive frame. The span bolster has a pivot bearing at each end on its bottom which rides atop the center pivot bearing of each truck. The span bolster also has a pivot bearing at the center of its top which attaches to and suports the single pivot bearing of the locomotive frame.
So the span bolster pivots on the locomotive frame, and the two trucks pivot on the two ends of the span bolster.
Murphy Siding Can anyone explain the need for span bolsters connecting the pairs of trucks?
Most other arrangements will tend to put more weight on the axles that are on a 'high' spot, and 'unload' those in low spots, thereby creating a greater tendency for those axles to slip when under a large tractive effort load.
- Paul North.
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.
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 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?
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?
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..
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
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?
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..
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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!
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
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%
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?
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.
Not the one I was looking for, but it shows the couplers and how they work.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l_I4G92CAco
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.
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.
ROAR
The Route of the Broadway Lion The Largest Subway Layout in North Dakota.
Here there be cats. LIONS with CAMERAS
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 !
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.