E-Units Hauling Freight Trains

[railman]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Randy Stahl

The E- units on the UP were rebuilt with AR 10 alternators and 645 e emd engines, I think VMV paducha did the work. These are essentially GP-38-2 locomotives.
Randy

Aha, uncle pete pulled a fast one on us. They still have the A-1-A trucks, don't they?

[AntonioFP45]

Guys,

I very much appreciate the technical info provided. Honestly, some of you should have a column in TRAINS.

One thing I had forgotten to mention. In the photos and the video clip the Seaboard and New York Central E-units hauling fast freight were used IN CONJUNCTION(m.u) with EMD hood units like GP35s, GP40s, and U-Boats.

So in cases like this wouldn't it be feasible that the E-units leading in lashups like these were contributing significant horsepower and tractive effort in hauling freight over more challenging grades as well as straight and level fast track?

Just a thought.!

[zardoz]

With a eight-to-ten car suburban train, and a little dampness on the rail, and maybe a grade crossing or two (to add dripped oil to the mix), it took quite a while to get any speed going when leaving a station.

The E's wheels were also known to pick up when going over road crossings (again, due to the oil), even at speeds up to at least 50mph. And the wheel-slip system was so primitive that under the right conditions, that type of slippage would not even be noticed by the system. So if it was the #2 drive axle slipping, and you did not notice the feeling in your seat (especially in those %#@!&*! "Crandalized" conversions), you would glace at your spedometer and see a speed reading of 70-90 mph sometimes. And if you did not notice it in time, the overspeed safety system would cause a penalty brake application. Most embarrassing, especially during rush-hour where there is no extra time 'padding'!

On a SD (I never ran the new fancy units with the elaborate wheel-slip system), if the wheels were slipping a bit, you could feather five to ten psi on the locomotive's brakes to help dry the wheels, as well as restraining the slip if had already begun. On an E unit, you could not do that, as the idler axle also had brake shoes. and would at best retard forward momentum, or at worst, the wheels would pick up and slide. And you would get no wheel-slip indication in the cab either, so you'd never know until you released the locomotive brakes and the wheel started thumping.

Management hated it when you did that.

[AntonioFP45]

M.W Hemphill,

I have a better understanding now.

Thanks!

BTW: According to some photos I saw a while back there is supposedly at least one E unit painted in Erie Railroad colors somewhere up north in "pristine" condition. Anyone know about this?

[greyhounds]

If you want to see E's on a frieght - take a look in Fred Fraily's "Twilight of the Great Trains." He uses a photo of a Union Pacific mixed train arriving into Oshkosh, Nebraska behind back to back E's. The train had about two passenger cars behind around 30 boxcars.

I don't have the photo readily avaialble, but IIRC the E's are running on a dirt balasted track.

I really like that photo. I sometimes just stare at it and try to understand why the UP ran that mixed train over that track with E units.

[kevarc]

Could have something to do with the axle load limt. Much like the units in Canada with teh idler axle to help spread the load of the engine.

[railman]

not just not being able to see....imagine backing a 70' diesel around on that trolley track you'd find on poorly treated sidings...makes me nervous just imagining it.

[Anonymous]

Since we're on the subject of E-Units, I've got a question regarding the fuel tank size on Southern's E8s. Were the larger fuel tanks specified by the Southern to eliminate a fuel stop (or stops) en route to the passenger train's destination? One more question regarding the same locomotives: what are the oval-shaped tanks in front of, and behind the fuel tank?

[martin.knoepfel]

Somebody mentioned the UP-E8's getting new prime-movers.

Does anybody know whether they got two additional tractions-motors to make
them (Co) (Co)-engines or did they stay (A1A) (A1A)-engines?

[M636C]

Martin,

No, the E unit truck did not allow a third traction motor because the secondary suspension (swing bolster) was in the way. That was why all early SDs had the "Flexicoil" truck, because it was designed to take three motors. Also, the equipment installed in the E units was that from a GP38. If six motors were needed, the electrical equipment from an SD38, designed for six motors, would have been used!

So they are still A1A' A1A'!

Peter

[Overmod]

QUOTE: Originally posted by martin.knoepfel
Does anybody know whether they got two additional tractions-motors to make
them (Co) (Co)-engines or did they stay (A1A) (A1A)-engines?

Yes. No. Yes.

There is no place in a swing-hanger Blomberg to hang that additional traction motor. So they are A-1-A ... although I suspect the actual motors are quite different from the ones that came with them...

You could, I suppose, re-truck them -- but the question then becomes, with what? Flexicoils lack ride quality, and HTCRs might cost more than the entire locomotive. (This completely aside from the historical value of the Blombergs)

[martin.knoepfel]

@m.w.hemphill, overmod, m636c.

thank your for your ansers

[Paul Milenkovic]

Based on the Diesel Spotter Guides and other sources, the E's have any interesting orign. They seem to be a direct outgrowth of the "shovelnoses" from the Burlington Zephyrs.

The Pioneer Zephyr had something like an 8-cylinder inline Diesel -- 600 HP or so. Later shovel nose Zephyr power cars lacked the articulated connection to the train cars and had paired 12 cylinder 900 HP engines. The original E had the same setup -- supposedly "FT" stood for "fourteen hundred HP" and "E" stood for "eighteen hundred HP" -- the HP grew to the 2400 HP of the E9.

The other story told is that the Winton Diesel that preceded the 567 was pretty unreliable. It was meant for a submarine engine room where you recruited or drafted guys to stand there and fixed things that broke. The early streamliners had crews of EMD techs riding in the engine rooms to do the same thing. The 567 was a major and successful effort to make a much more reliable Diesel for railroad operations.

Talking about the shovel noses, I work on the engineering campus of the University of Wisconsin-Madison, and parkedbehind a chain link fence is something which looks like stripped-down Diesel locomotive auxiliaries housed within a metal skeleton frame that looks like the outline of one of the Burlington Zephyr shovel nosed power cars. We have scientists using generators from Diesel locomotives attached to flywheels as a power source for a magnetic-confinement fusion experiment, so I suppose I should go over and ask them if that is a source of parts. But do you suppose that is the real deal -- the scrapped hulk of a shovelnose, or is that frame some kind of museum recreation and not the real thing? Should I get over there with a camera ASAP?

[Overmod]

Paul, surely you know better than to ask that sort of question. Photograph it as fast as possible -- and see if you can find someone who knows what it is.

Two E units in similar condition were outside the fence at the Virginia Museum of Transportation in Roanoke last summer... never did find out whose they were.

[zardoz]

I've got two questions that I have wondered about for a long time. Well, actually I have many questions that I've wondered about, but I'll stick to railroading.

Regarding F and E units:

Was the "F" designation symbolic for Freight , for Full-width carbody, or something else?

And what did the "E" symbolize?

[Overmod]

Well, it sorta depends:

FT = Freight, Twenty-seven hundred horsepower (two 1350hp units semipermanently coupled into one locomotive;

F = Fifteen hundred horsepower (single carbody) -- convenient that it could also stand for Freight, but 'not necessarily' (note that you could, and some roads did, use Fs with normal carbodies as passenger power)

E = Eighteen hundred horsepower (original configuration) -- ironically enough, 2 900hp Winton 201As in the early carbodies, although I believe all the 'real' production Es, starting with the Seaboard E4s delivered before any E3 was, had 567s which made at least 1000hp each...

The difference between F and FP, semantically, is a bit more difficult to confirm. Obviously, the FP was intended primarily for passenger service -- apparently the added 4' in the carbody of an FP-7, for example, was for added tankage, not for a steam generator per se. The much later SDP35, FP45, etc. were also so named because they were longer, but at least one railroad (EL) bought SDPs for the larger fuel tank, and had no interest of running them on passenger trains AFAIK. I seem to remember that the 'cowl' F units had the "F" standing for "full-width carbody" but don't have time to find out now.

[AntonioFP45]

Overmod,

Super! You've got your ducks in a row!

I've been a railfan and modeler since about 1977, and never knew what the "E" in the E units stoof for! I had also assumed that "F" had stood for freight, didn't know that it was referring to the "ponies". Plus in the FP7, the fuel tank being the consideration instead of the boiler. I do have a book that remarks about Erie Lackawanna purchasing the SDP45s for the extended range fuel tanks. Thanks for the education!

BTW: On those "Cowls", yes..(F45, FP45, F40C, F40PH, SDP40F).......The "F" does stand for "Full Width Carbody". A lot of history with these chunky EMD brutes . One can create a whole new topic on them.

Peace!

[espeefoamer]

The first F after the FT was the F2.These had 1350HP which would cast doubt on the Fifteen hundred designation.
UP ran E units on frieghts after Amtrak,but I never saw one[:(].I did see a lashup of 4 U28Cs and one E9B in the fueling racks at East L.A. yard once.

[espeefoamer]

Around 1937 EMD built some slant nosed 4wheel trucked passenger units for the Rock Island.These were called the TA. What did this stand for and what was their horsepower?

[M636C]

espeefoamer, Overmod

The "TA" stood for "Twelve Hundred Horsepower, A unit" just as B&O's EA stood for "Eighteen Hundred Horsepower, A unit".

What is interesting here is that while the 567 engine version of the EA became the "E3", the FT, which was not very different from a 567 version of the TA, became the FT, or in the case of units supplied new to Santa Fe, became the FS. This last information came to me from Dan Dover more than twenty years ago, and it was only much later that I realised that Santa Fe units were all built with knuckle couplers on each end. AT&SF initially ran ABBA sets, then after union problems, ABBB sets, then after the problems went away, ABBA again. Looking at the delivery records is quite confusing.

So an FS was an FT (A or B) with couplers both ends, and logically stands for "Fourteen Hundred Horsepower, Single Unit" so following that logic, FT stood for "Fourteen Hundred Horsepower, Twin Unit" or in a few cases "Fourteen Hundred Horsepower Triple Unit". When previously bar coupled twin, or triple sets were fitted with couplers, the FS designation fell into disuse, and all were known as FT.

Anyway, that's my two cents worth on the subject! Given that they had 16 cylinder engines (rated at 1200 HP in the 201A version), "Freight, Twelve Hundred Horsepower" is a possible interpretation, but this (and Overmod's version) doesn't explain the AT&SF "FS" units.

Peter

[Overmod]

I had not heard of FS units before this, but it seems flawlessly logical (and in accord with 'the rest' of what we know about Electro-Motive naming conventions) for FT to be the engine horsepower/connection conventions. I presume that the case for early Es is different because each unit was assumed to be a separate locomotive (presuming further that "EB" is a correct EMD or B&O designation for an EA booster unit), thereby removing any need to distinguish between semipermanently-coupled (I can't recall any offhand) and merely common-numbered "locomotive" sets.

This is yet another reason I love these forums!

[Anonymous]

Additionally, until the E7 was mass-produced after WWII, the numerical designation after the "E" had to do with the order and not with the model, as they were all different at that time.

[GMS-AU]

Just a quick note, E type units can be seen hauling freight in Australia. Known as GM or CL or similar these are esentially SD configuration. Quite old and rebuilt these units still kick up their heels on freights. Come on down!

[GMS-AU]

Whoops, forgot to mention a six axle version of an F40, the sharper shape , not the older F45 shape. DL class I think off the top of my head. These are modern locally built by the local GM affiliated builder Clyde. These are used mainly for freight.

[oltmannd]

Having A-1-A trucks and weighing only 335,000# or so is one problem. At 18% adhesion that would only allow 40,000# TE, which is just pitiful. If you geared it right for frt service, you'd have the traction motor thermal limit fall in line with the adhesion limit, so that you could count on 40,000# being available all the time. Compare this with 100,000# for an SD60 or 147,000 for an SD80MAC.

A "balanced" design for a freight locomotive will have about 40 HP for each 1000# TE. The E8 has 56 HP for each 1000# TE, so you'd wind up overpowering trains, which wastes fuel. On top of this, blower engines running in notch 8 suck fuel like crazy compared to turbos, so fuel cost goes up again.

[oltmannd]

QUOTE: Originally posted by M636C

Overmod,

In your statement about fuel efficiency, specifically referring to SD45s, as we were, have you taken into account the EMD turbo which is gear driven up to about notch 7. When the turbo "runs away", the power used up to that point to drive it becomes available for the alternator, and on EMD specific fuel economy curves this shows up as an intersection of two different curves.

So, in the case of the SD45, which Mark was discussing, the maximum fuel economy does occur at 900 rpm in notch 8. This is due to the specific design of the 645E3, and doesn't affect your assertion in general about maximum torque.

Interestingly, if you plot out fuel consumption and HP for a 16-646E3 you get a nearly constant slope curve with a positive intercept at zero HP. This means that each increment of HP has the same incremental fuel cost. Efficiency in N8 is greater than N1 (or any other notch for that matter) because the idle fuel "overhead" is a smaller percentage of the overall fuel consumption.

The point at which the turbo free wheels is really irrelevant.

[AntonioFP45]

QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd

A "balanced" design for a freight locomotive will have about 40 HP for each 1000# TE. The E8 has 56 HP for each 1000# TE, so you'd wind up overpowering trains, which wastes fuel. On top of this, blower engines running in notch 8 suck fuel like crazy compared to turbos, so fuel cost goes up again.

Oltmannd,

Yes, at notch eight the 567s, by today's standards, would be inefficient fuel hogs just like the old Chevy 350. However, at about 56 horses for very 1000 TE, would this not work out for a "hot shot" 65+mph freight train running on mainlines with low percent grades? Once a hot shot is at speed, do not not the tractive effort and horsepower requirements "decrease"? Hence, the inefficient 56 horses would be dramatically reduced and due to the EMD 567 diesel being smaller in cubic inches than a 645 diesel, would not there have been a reasonable savings in "OVERALL" fuel consumption in using the E8 or E9?

I'm probably not looking at this right as I often relate railroad horespower and traction figures to the old "Hot Rods" I grew up with that came with V-8s. I know that the formulas for railroad equipment involve a lot more physics.

Thanks!

[oltmannd]

Yes, it would be an OK fit for intermodal service, but the number units in the fleet required and the fuel would be killers. You can go 2:1 with GP60s -that would give you half the locomotives to maintain with more than that in engine maint, wheel wear, brake shoes, etc. Idle fuel would be cut to about 1/3 and when you idle more than 50% of the time, it adds up.

567 or 645 matters little. In fact, you can put 645 power assys in a 567C engine and fuel consumption change is nil. You win on parts inventory if you can eliminate 567 stuff from the warehouse. Turbo or roots blower matters A LOT - about 15% in notch 8.

[AntonioFP45]

Wow!

O.K, Oltmannd, I have a much better understanding now. The factors you've mentioned do make a significant impact on operational efficiency.

On the engine, my analogy would be like taking a Chevy 350 and re-equipping it with 305 cylinder heads. The difference in fuel efficicency would be negligible.

Thanks for the info!

[jockellis]

Seaboard Coastline had at least one A-A lashup in 1973. I saw it at the Waycros shops when I went out to interview the Waycross mayor who was also General Shop Superintendent. I was quite surprised to see them. I never saw the units on the road. But in 1979, I saw a pair of Southern Railway F units dressed in Virginia green pulling a freight train. And in 1985, I saw the 611 hammering through Cordele, GA, at the head end of a freight the day after we rode behind it from Jacksonville to Valdosta.
Jock Ellis