Electric, Diesel and Steam Locomotives

[Sterling1]

QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd

For RR service, the traction HP is as follows:

16-645E - 2000 HP
16-645E3 - 3000 HP (although UPs Centenials were rated at 3300HP)
20-645E3 - 3600 HP
16-645F3 - 3600 HP

You can squeeze more HP out of the turbocharged engines, to a point, by increasing the fuel and/or engine RPM, but that will cost you in reliability.

The EMD 16-710G3 started life rated at 3800 HP. This was later bumped up to 4000 and now to 4300 HP. A similarly rated 20-710G3 would give you roughly 5500 HP.

I know that UPs Centenials may have had supercharged 16-645E3 engines.

Matt

[Sterling1]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Sterling1

QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd

For RR service, the traction HP is as follows:

16-645E - 2000 HP
16-645E3 - 3000 HP (although UPs Centenials were rated at 3300HP)
20-645E3 - 3600 HP
16-645F3 - 3600 HP

You can squeeze more HP out of the turbocharged engines, to a point, by increasing the fuel and/or engine RPM, but that will cost you in reliability.

The EMD 16-710G3 started life rated at 3800 HP. This was later bumped up to 4000 and now to 4300 HP. A similarly rated 20-710G3 would give you roughly 5500 HP.

I know that UPs Centenials may have had supercharged 16-645E3 engines.

Matt

While we are on the topic of prime movers and engines, I have these questions that while some may seem redundant and pointless I am wondering how high one could turbo-, super-charge, or normally aspirate:
Alco 251engines
GE FDL and HDL engines

Matt

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

Turbocharging and supercharging can boost horsepower ratings pretty high, but the maintenance requriements also go up as the ratings get higher.

In a similar vein, I am quite amused by the various ads for automobiles boasting of their horsepower rating without mentioning that the advertised horsepower is achieved only at close to maximum RPM's.

[Sterling1]

QUOTE: Originally posted by CSSHEGEWISCH

Turbocharging and supercharging can boost horsepower ratings pretty high, but the maintenance requriements also go up as the ratings get higher.

In a similar vein, I am quite amused by the various ads for automobiles boasting of their horsepower rating without mentioning that the advertised horsepower is achieved only at close to maximum RPM's.

I remember a radio commercial where this guy was extolling the virtues of the higher horsepower of his company's SUV's 255hp against 210hp Jeep Cherokee (I think). He basically used all the meaness to degrade possibly better product.

Of course I find it amusing on the teen side who has a higher more powerfully rated computer; kinda reminds me of what Ed King said about N&W's compound 2-8-8-2's:

"If they could sell you 20 high-wheeled Challengers to move tonnage which could be moved more profitably with 15 or so modern compounds 2-8-8-2's, they were going to do their utmost to sell you the Challengers."

Some steamers I should say that were used in high speed service were supposed to be there i.e. Nickel Plate's Berkshires.

[Sterling1]

I may have covered this before, but what is an SD50S?

[M636C]

The SD50S and the very similar (second) SD40X were built on the SD40-2 frame, 68'10" over couplers. They had the 16-645F3 engine rated at 3500 HP and had the excellent big AR16 alternator which could provide all the current needed for starting without needing to transition between series and parallel connection of the internal windings, as was required by the later, smaller, lighter AR11. EMD found that the radiators would have to be removed to remove the engine, and designed a longer frame 71'2" in length for later SD50s. KCS purchased four SD40X, N&W bought six SD50S and the Utah Railway obtained the five Australian -built SD50S built for Hamersley Iron. Some later SD50s had their power raised to 3600 HP, but I believe all the SD50S units remain(ed) at 3500HP.

Peter

[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.

[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]

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.

[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?

[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?

[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]

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 . . .

[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?

[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]

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.

[Sterling1]

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

[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]

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 . . .

[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 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]

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?

[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/

[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.

[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]

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 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???!!!

[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)

[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,

[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!