Electric, Diesel and Steam Locomotives

[Sterling1]

QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd

QUOTE: Originally posted by Sterling1

While on the topic of SD50 , which units got the horsepower increase from 3500 to 3600? Which railroads specifically and what was the manufacturing years?

Conrail's first two orders were 3500 HP, the second two, 3600 HP.

The difference was almost completely that the 3600 HP have traction motor blower shutters to throttle the air flow to the traction motor and partially unload the shaft driven traction motor blowers.

There was no differnce in brake HP out of the diesel at notch 8.

So an upgrade in horsepower, but similar tractive effort?

[oltmannd]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Sterling1

While on the topic of SD50 , which units got the horsepower increase from 3500 to 3600? Which railroads specifically and what was the manufacturing years?

Conrail's first two orders were 3500 HP, the second two, 3600 HP.

The difference was almost completely that the 3600 HP have traction motor blower shutters to throttle the air flow to the traction motor and partially unload the shaft driven traction motor blowers.

There was no differnce in brake HP out of the diesel at notch 8.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by M636C

QUOTE: Originally posted by Guilford350

I forget the exact date but I think it was around 1983 when EMD introduced the angled blower housing. SD50's and GP50's built before that date had the older, rounded style housing. Any units built after that date, had the angled style, including some GP40-2's and SD40-2's. I believe only 10 SD50's had the rounded style, KCS 704-713.

The five Australian (Clyde Engineering) built SD50S units, now with the Utah Railway, also have the old type blower bulge. As built, these had an odd plate extension on the leading edge of the bulge to allow the first letter of the road name (H for Hamersley) to fit on it!

Peter

I've seen a couple photos with that extension. Very crafty, indeed.

[M636C]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Guilford350

I forget the exact date but I think it was around 1983 when EMD introduced the angled blower housing. SD50's and GP50's built before that date had the older, rounded style housing. Any units built after that date, had the angled style, including some GP40-2's and SD40-2's. I believe only 10 SD50's had the rounded style, KCS 704-713.

The five Australian (Clyde Engineering) built SD50S units, now with the Utah Railway, also have the old type blower bulge. As built, these had an odd plate extension on the leading edge of the bulge to allow the first letter of the road name (H for Hamersley) to fit on it!

Peter

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

CNJ also ran GP7's on the NY&LB on occasion. Two were subbing for a Train Master in 1958 when they ran through a raised vertical lift span on the Newark Bay Bridge with an NY&LB train.

[Overmod]

Congrats, CSS... nobody could accuse YOU of inflating the post content, either...

For the record, the Sharks DID last a comparatively long time. And were capable of good performance on the NY&LB trains, loading faster and capable of surviving larger amp draw than their EMD E-unit counterparts. (That according to R.J. Russell, who ran them; he did not say anything bad about them other that it was very difficult to see where you were going from the cab when backing up.) Notably, the Alco PAs that also arrived on the NY&LB in '56 were NOT particularly successful... perhaps for the same sort of reasons that made D&H PAs troublesome in NJT service about three decades later... ;-}

I don't think PRR ever ran road-switchers in this service. CNJ, of course, had TrainMasters and RS1s (but not, I think, RS2s and 3s like the Erie/Lackawanna for commuter service) but PRR, afaik, went from the Baldwins and Alcos straight to E units... I can remember seeing them several times in the early '60s when vacationing in Manasquan and Ocean City with my grandparents.

Might not forget that CNJ ran their glorious G-3 Pacifics on this line, too...

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

The NY&LB was a bit of a haven for Baldwins, but never hosted a Centipede. CNJ ran its double-ended baby-face DRX6-4-20's in suburban service and PRR ran off the last miles on its sharknose DR6-4-20's on the NY&LB.

The NY&LB has achieved justifiable fame for being the last home of a lot of notable power. PRR's last passenger steam power ran there, PRR's passenger sharks finished their service on that line, and more recently, the GG1's finished out their years of service there and it was one of the last bastions of a large E-unit fleet.

Milestone: this is my 1000th post!

[daveklepper]

If my memory is correct, the first diesels on the New York and Long Branch, while the PRR was still using K4's, were Jersey Central Baldwin Centapids, replacing camelback 4-6-0's. Didn't last long, replaced by road switchers, I think Alco RS-2's or RS-3's,

[Overmod]

Plenty of information on Centipedes -- just restricted to Baldwin fan community and esoteric history. There was very little of their technology that turned out to be useful for the kind of locomotives that prevailed... and have subsequently prevailed... in the marketplace.

Engines used in the production Centipedes were typical 608 series; I think all SC and not NA. The chassis was derived from high-speed electric practice of the time (note that PRR, at about the same time the Centipedes were developed, had gone in the opposite direction as far as number of powered axles, with the DD2, but didn't have to accommodate two fairly big diesel engine/generators in a single carbody). All tankage was above the undercarriage, which presented some packaging and seal problems. Cabs AFAIK were comparable to other 'covered wagons' -- no inherent reason why they couldn't be large and spacious as desired; you'll notice they were arbitrarily made with a lower roof height than the 'rest' of the carbody.

The articulated undercarriage was massive overkill for the amount of actual horsepower developed, and provided no meaningful gain over what could be achieved with a bunch of A-1-A Blombergs in practice. The fact that you don't see any other Baldwin production designs using it should be illustrative.

Much of the unreliability was common to many Baldwins -- lots of little separate lines and routing for oil, for example, led to lots of big and little leaks when the engines got into regular service, indifferent maintenance, etc. If Baldwin had had a Dilworth doing their overall locomotive design, things might have been different. IIRC many of the 'unreliability' problems with the design were solved, but by that time the units were effectively orphans -- some of PRR's were derated and placed in helper service, which was a waste of their 100+mph capacity, but probably a reasonable use of their full-articulated chassis capacity.

Baldwin did have one interesting use of the capability of the Centipede idea -- a 6000hp test locomotive in the late '40s that was intended to use modular transverse V-8 engine/generator sets. You slid in more or less power as desired for your intended service, a rather interesting idea then as now. I've read varying accounts of how this project effectively came to go nowhere.

There's at least one good book on Baldwin diesels that will tell you all the stuff you're asking about. (I don't own it yet, but rather than do so and then violate the spirit of copyright, I'll just tell you to order it from Amazon or some other source that can procure it new or used)

[Sterling1]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Sterling1

I was thinking about this last night, but I'll tell you now.
The Baldwin Centipede
Not so much the horsepower but the type of engine used, the location of the fuel tanks, etc.
Were the cabs cramped or not, did the untis have dynamic brakes, etc that sort of stuff.
I also read up that they were highly unreliable. Is that true and if true how bad?
Long set of questions . . .

I guess no real info on Baldwin Centipedes, is that it???!!!

[Anonymous]

I forget the exact date but I think it was around 1983 when EMD introduced the angled blower housing. SD50's and GP50's built before that date had the older, rounded style housing. Any units built after that date, had the angled style, including some GP40-2's and SD40-2's. I believe only 10 SD50's had the rounded style, KCS 704-713.

[Sterling1]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Guilford350

QUOTE: Originally posted by Sterling1

While on the topic of SD50 , which units got the horsepower increase from 3500 to 3600? Which railroads specifically and what was the manufacturing years?

Units produced from 1984 until May 1985 saw the horsepower increase.

The blower cover design changed on the Sd50 yet in a recent SD50 pix I saw one that had the one that the SD40-2 had. What was the year that EMD started using that new design?

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Sterling1

While on the topic of SD50 , which units got the horsepower increase from 3500 to 3600? Which railroads specifically and what was the manufacturing years?

Units produced from 1984 until May 1985 saw the horsepower increase.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Sterling1

Also does anyone know of a railroad specific website where railfans can see roster shots and roster information for locomotives?
I know there one for Norfolk Southern, but I have forgotten the website URL . . .

CSX- http://www.trainweb.org/csxphotos/
NS- http://www.nslocos.com/main.html
BN- http://www.trainpix.com/BN/INDEX.HTM
BNSF- http://www.trainpix.com/bnsf/
ATSF- http://www.trainpix.com/ATSF/INDEX.HTM
CR- http://crcyc.railfan.net/

[Sterling1]

While on the topic of SD50 , which units got the horsepower increase from 3500 to 3600? Which railroads specifically and what was the manufacturing years?

[Sterling1]

I just recently read up in the May 2005 issue about SD50 units. One in particular KCS 708 had an additional light on top of the normal set of headlights. Was that feature also on the rear and how many units got that addition?

Also does anyone know of a railroad specific website where railfans can see roster shots and roster information for locomotives?
I know there one for Norfolk Southern, but I have forgotten the website URL . . .

[Sterling1]

Historically locomotive bells and air horns have been placed all around the unit. Where's the best place to put a bell or bells and air horns?

[Sterling1]

I was thinking about this last night, but I'll tell you now.
The Baldwin Centipede
Not so much the horsepower but the type of engine used, the location of the fuel tanks, etc.
Were the cabs cramped or not, did the untis have dynamic brakes, etc that sort of stuff.
I also read up that they were highly unreliable. Is that true and if true how bad?
Long set of questions . . .

[M636C]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Sterling1

QUOTE: Originally posted by M636C

QUOTE: Originally posted by Sterling1

I remember reading on another forum that the water tanks for the steam boiler on SDP40F were inside the carbody. However that's not too visible; where would the intake nozzle be?
What were the water cappacites on all the locomotive that were equipped this way from F units to FP45 and SDP40F?
The U28CG and U30CG did those have steam boilers and also for the U28CG where would the steam boiler be located?
While were are on the topic of passenger/freight locos how amny U34CH were built and did it have a separate alternator for HEP?

The FP45 had a 5000 gallon tank, which from the drawing appears to be divided into 3200 gallons fuel (same as an F45) and 1800 gallons water. An additional 1000 gallon tank was offered but I don't know if either Santa Fe or Milwaukee specified this. I believe the U28CG and U30CG had divided tanks, and both these units had the boiler located just behind the cab, visible through a box above the carbody in the U30CG. There were 32 U34CH built and they had a separate HEP alternator but it was driven by the main engine, just like that in an F40PH.

The F40C had a similar alternator driven by (and in front of) the main engine. Below the radiators there was a fairly empty space. It had no boiler and had no boiler water. The stainless side panels were intended to match the stainless steel gallery cars operated by Metra. Remember that the SDP40F and FP45 have removable plywood panels covered with aluminium forming most of the sides - the F40C just used ribbed stainless steel instead.

The GG1 was a damaged unit that someone realized could be used as a switcher by cutting off the damaged end (clear of the central transformer- it wasn't exactly cut in half). It wasn't often done because it wouldn't often work.

And it was my post about the water tanks in the SDP40F (at least someone read it), and I don't know where the fillers were, but probably down by the fuel tanks.

Peter

By the GG1 question I meant any locomotive, and thanks for the information. I saw a beautiful model U28CG in a 1999 Model Railroader issue, but of course the angle wasn't that good and it wasn't the prototype. Have to check out my pics sites for U28CG.

Matt,

My answer did refer to locomotives in general. The GG1 was able to be cut in half because, apart from the transformer in the centre of the unit, it was symmetrical and had two (or more) of everything including cabs. There are very few other locomotives that were like that. There was a huge steam locomotive built in Belgium in the late 1930s that had two boilers and a centre cab, known as the the Franco locomotive after its designer. It was cut in two and the two halves worked quite happily on their own, but you can't do that in most cases. I hope this clarifies my short answer.

Peter

[Sterling1]

Another thing, what are the common options offered in new locomotive? Passenger or freight; for the crew, etc., etc. . .

[Sterling1]

QUOTE: Originally posted by M636C

QUOTE: Originally posted by Sterling1

I remember reading on another forum that the water tanks for the steam boiler on SDP40F were inside the carbody. However that's not too visible; where would the intake nozzle be?
What were the water cappacites on all the locomotive that were equipped this way from F units to FP45 and SDP40F?
The U28CG and U30CG did those have steam boilers and also for the U28CG where would the steam boiler be located?
While were are on the topic of passenger/freight locos how amny U34CH were built and did it have a separate alternator for HEP?

The FP45 had a 5000 gallon tank, which from the drawing appears to be divided into 3200 gallons fuel (same as an F45) and 1800 gallons water. An additional 1000 gallon tank was offered but I don't know if either Santa Fe or Milwaukee specified this. I believe the U28CG and U30CG had divided tanks, and both these units had the boiler located just behind the cab, visible through a box above the carbody in the U30CG. There were 32 U34CH built and they had a separate HEP alternator but it was driven by the main engine, just like that in an F40PH.

The F40C had a similar alternator driven by (and in front of) the main engine. Below the radiators there was a fairly empty space. It had no boiler and had no boiler water. The stainless side panels were intended to match the stainless steel gallery cars operated by Metra. Remember that the SDP40F and FP45 have removable plywood panels covered with aluminium forming most of the sides - the F40C just used ribbed stainless steel instead.

The GG1 was a damaged unit that someone realized could be used as a switcher by cutting off the damaged end (clear of the central transformer- it wasn't exactly cut in half). It wasn't often done because it wouldn't often work.

And it was my post about the water tanks in the SDP40F (at least someone read it), and I don't know where the fillers were, but probably down by the fuel tanks.

Peter

By the GG1 question I meant any locomotive, and thanks for the information. I saw a beautiful model U28CG in a 1999 Model Railroader issue, but of course the angle wasn't that good and it wasn't the prototype. Have to check out my pics sites for U28CG.

[M636C]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Sterling1

I remember reading on another forum that the water tanks for the steam boiler on SDP40F were inside the carbody. However that's not too visible; where would the intake nozzle be?
What were the water cappacites on all the locomotive that were equipped this way from F units to FP45 and SDP40F?
The U28CG and U30CG did those have steam boilers and also for the U28CG where would the steam boiler be located?
While were are on the topic of passenger/freight locos how amny U34CH were built and did it have a separate alternator for HEP?

The FP45 had a 5000 gallon tank, which from the drawing appears to be divided into 3200 gallons fuel (same as an F45) and 1800 gallons water. An additional 1000 gallon tank was offered but I don't know if either Santa Fe or Milwaukee specified this. I believe the U28CG and U30CG had divided tanks, and both these units had the boiler located just behind the cab, visible through a box above the carbody in the U30CG. There were 32 U34CH built and they had a separate HEP alternator but it was driven by the main engine, just like that in an F40PH.

The F40C had a similar alternator driven by (and in front of) the main engine. Below the radiators there was a fairly empty space. It had no boiler and had no boiler water. The stainless side panels were intended to match the stainless steel gallery cars operated by Metra. Remember that the SDP40F and FP45 have removable plywood panels covered with aluminium forming most of the sides - the F40C just used ribbed stainless steel instead.

The GG1 was a damaged unit that someone realized could be used as a switcher by cutting off the damaged end (clear of the central transformer- it wasn't exactly cut in half). It wasn't often done because it wouldn't often work.

And it was my post about the water tanks in the SDP40F (at least someone read it), and I don't know where the fillers were, but probably down by the fuel tanks.

Peter

[Sterling1]

Was just on RailPics and saw a GG1 cut in half!
See it
http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=100067

Is such a thing common these days and in the past?

[Sterling1]

Did the F40C have space in the rear for steam boiler, HEP alternator and/or HEP diesel generator pack?
I am not too sure if they had a partitioned fuel/water tank.
By the way was the reason for having the fluted stainless steel panels on the sides, I remember seeing them on Metra units before they were retired . . .

[GP40-2]

If I remember correctly, the increased length of the orginal 20 cylinder crankshaft was vibration prone, which helped lead to early engine failure.

[Sterling1]

I remember reading on another forum that the water tanks for the steam boiler on SDP40F were inside the carbody. However that's not too visible; where would the intake nozzle be?
What were the water cappacites on all the locomotive that were equipped this way from F units to FP45 and SDP40F?
The U28CG and U30CG did those have steam boilers and also for the U28CG where would the steam boiler be located?
While were are on the topic of passenger/freight locos how amny U34CH were built and did it have a separate alternator for HEP?

[Sterling1]

QUOTE: Originally posted by GP40-2

Two comments:
1) The 645 engine in the Centennials was not supercharged. It had the standard EMD turbocharger but was equiped with 20% injectors and ran at a slightly higher rpm (950 vs 900 I believe) than the standard 645 to get the extra hp.

2) The 20 cylinder 645 is not a "gas guzzler" It is actually more fuel efficient in terms of hp vs. fuel used than the 16 cylinder version. I have no idea why this myth is still told by railfans when the fuel consumption figures clearly state otherwise. The 20 cylinder didn't catch on because the orginal versions had maintence problems due to a crankshaft design flaw. The flaw was corrected in the SD45-2 versions along with the Conrail SD80's (20 cylinder 710 engine), both of which are very reliable locomotives.

On your first comment I had forgotten that the injectors were set that way, but my source said it was supercharged, I wonder why.
Also what kind of flaw was it, you say it's crankshaft, do you mean increased breakage for the crankshaft?

[GP40-2]

On EMD 2-cycles, the turbo is geared to the engine at lower rpm's, just like a roots-blower. At higher rpm's a clutch disengages it, and it free wheels like a normal turbocharger.

The four cycle H engine uses the traditional free spinning turbos.

[rvos1979]

while on the subject of EMD engines, are the turbo engines set up like the old GMC truck engines (i.e. turbo blowing into a roots blower blowing into airbox), or something different?

Randy Vos

[GP40-2]

Two comments:
1) The 645 engine in the Centennials was not supercharged. It had the standard EMD turbocharger but was equiped with 20% injectors and ran at a slightly higher rpm (950 vs 900 I believe) than the standard 645 to get the extra hp.

2) The 20 cylinder 645 is not a "gas guzzler" It is actually more fuel efficient in terms of hp vs. fuel used than the 16 cylinder version. I have no idea why this myth is still told by railfans when the fuel consumption figures clearly state otherwise. The 20 cylinder didn't catch on because the orginal versions had maintence problems due to a crankshaft design flaw. The flaw was corrected in the SD45-2 versions along with the Conrail SD80's (20 cylinder 710 engine), both of which are very reliable locomotives.