Hello all,
I believe there was a thread about this a while back, but with this forum's search engine, I can't find it...
So, who knows of any diesels catalogued, but not built?
Just to start:
A GE B18-7
NW
I'll add the EMD DD40A as originally proposed, see July 1965 TRAINS.
Wide selection of Baldwins.
Not a diesel, exactly, but would the FG-9 qualify? And we only just mentioned the AMT-125...
What about the "updated" double-diesel proposal from GE -- U56. We had an extensive discussion on that topic in mid-March this year.
Well, The FG-9 was still an EMD, so I guess it counts...
Wasn't the FG-9 partially built but just never finished?
How about the end cab GE switcher based on the U18B.
How about EMD's RB3600, a pair of 1800 HP 12-567D3 on a 6-axle chassis with no cab? Think short version of the DD35.
I've never heard of such a thing. I don't see what the point would've been when a single 16 cylinder 567 could easily put out 2,400-2,500 HP at the time.
For a double engined diesel at the time to offer up any significant advantage in unit reduction, I imagine at least 5,000 HP was necessary as seen with the locomotives that actually were built. All that extra cost, complexity, and size just for an additional 1,100 HP doesn't seem justified. Especially if it was the mid 1960's with 645 prototypes already testing and demoing around the country with production just around the corner. Easier to understand if it was considered a few years earlier.
Not surprised that there weren't any takers.
Leo_AmesWasn't the FG-9 partially built but just never finished?
My memories are correct. Here's a picture.
SP considered and rejected the RB3600. Keep in mind that the alternatives at the time were SD24s which had a variety of issues that SP wasn't satisifed with, or GP20s/GP30s/GP35s which weren't much better than GP9s for most of SP's purposes. This was also the age of the Hydro on SP with both K-M and Alco versions being dual-engine and between 3600 and 4300 HP.
rcdrye SP considered and rejected the RB3600. Keep in mind that the alternatives at the time were SD24s which had a variety of issues that SP wasn't satisifed with, or GP20s/GP30s/GP35s which weren't much better than GP9s for most of SP's purposes. This was also the age of the Hydro on SP with both K-M and Alco versions being dual-engine and between 3600 and 4300 HP.
There's a mention of this proposed model in Brian Solomon's "EMD Locomotives", the brief description can be read on the Google Books preview if you scroll down to Page 96:
http://books.google.com/books?id=DO0mXy33FB8C&pg=PA96&lpg=PA96&dq=EMD+RB3600&source=bl&ots=ANVx-NDeEp&sig=igsXBNeL3OmjIVliwifmBFaFBXY&hl=en&sa=X&ei=LC4eUrnyIsjMsATKxoC4BA&ved=0CDsQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=EMD%20RB3600&f=false
"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock
OvermodWide selection of Baldwins.
Could you please provide more details, such as model designations?
And, do you know what happened to the FG9 Prototype?
Thank you very much!
More proposed but not built:
GMDH-2
Fairbanks-Morse:
CFA-24
CFB-24
CPB-20
CPB-24
There were several never built Lima models. These include a 800 HP BB road switcher, a 1600 HP center cab CC road switcher with two 800 HP 6 cylinder engines, another 1600 HP center cab along with a 2400 HP center cab intended for transfer duties (Of which PRR's 2500 HP units were a revision of), and of course Lima's 3200 HP CC cab unit powered by 6 free piston generators powering a turbine.
rcdryeSP considered and rejected the RB3600. Keep in mind that the alternatives at the time were SD24s which had a variety of issues that SP wasn't satisifed with, or GP20s/GP30s/GP35s which weren't much better than GP9s for most of SP's purposes. This was also the age of the Hydro on SP with both K-M and Alco versions being dual-engine and between 3600 and 4300 HP.
Why cabless? It's understandable with the DD35 since there was some concern about how the trucks would perform if one was leading. When their tracking ability proved to be fine, cab equipped models then appeared. But this would be a 6 axle locomotive.
Space constraints, perhaps? Presumably going without a cab would've allowed them to contain everything in about 65' or so which isn't significantly larger than single engined locomotives like the SD35. Southern Pacific had left the booster concept behind quite sometime before this when they embraced the road switcher so I'm guessing that there was more to it than just saving money by forgoing a cab.
Alco CF-636A & B,
C-624,
Leo_Ames There were several never built Lima models. These include a 800 HP BB road switcher, a 1600 HP center cab CC road switcher with two 800 HP 6 cylinder engines, another 1600 HP center cab along with a 2400 HP center cab intended for transfer duties (Of which PRR's 2500 HP units were a revision of), and of course Lima's 3200 HP CC cab unit powered by 6 free piston generators powering a turbine. rcdryeSP considered and rejected the RB3600. Keep in mind that the alternatives at the time were SD24s which had a variety of issues that SP wasn't satisifed with, or GP20s/GP30s/GP35s which weren't much better than GP9s for most of SP's purposes. This was also the age of the Hydro on SP with both K-M and Alco versions being dual-engine and between 3600 and 4300 HP. Why cabless? It's understandable with the DD35 since there was some concern about how the trucks would perform if one was leading. When their tracking ability proved to be fine, cab equipped models then appeared. But this would be a 6 axle locomotive. Space constraints, perhaps? Presumably going without a cab would've allowed them to contain everything in about 65' or so which isn't significantly larger than single engined locomotives like the SD35. Southern Pacific had left the booster concept behind quite sometime before this when they embraced the road switcher so I'm guessing that there was more to it than just saving money by forgoing a cab.
I would hazard a guess that the RB1600 was meant to be operated between 2 conventional single engine locomotives (SD9s maybe)..When EMD introduced the DD35 they were only going to offer the model as a B unit and it was intended to be run with a GP35 Mu'd to each end...
Because there were tracking concerns with 4 axle trucks. That's primarily why the initial DD35 was cabless and why EMD demoed two of them with a GP35 at each end instead of three DD35's. But this unbuilt model was a 6 axle and presumably would be using fairly standard Flexicoil trucks that had already found acceptance and weight seems like it could've been kept down to at least that of an E unit.
Southern Pacific had left the booster concept behind hundreds of locomotives earlier. Virtually the entire industry had. So while I suppose it could have been cost savings and railroads occasionally revisited the booster concept for that reason, I imagine other explanations are also possible like keeping it as compact as possible so as to not be significantly longer than contemporary 6 axle SD's.
Other than their later small taste of DD35's that were viewed as unsuitable for leading early on, their last boosters were built during the F7 days.
There are many Alco locomotive proposals that never got built. DS4-4-1000 has started. Here are a few more: C-620, C428, C636P, DH-650 all in the Century line, RSD-33 take a look at the last RSD-12 built, the LS&I 1804, and the 1-C-C-1 Pony Truck export engine that Alco should have built for South Africa Railways. The Pony Truck Affair helped sink ALCO and gave rise to the GE Universal Series.
DS4-4-1000 Alco CF-636A & B, C-624,
The SD40-2B is another. Union Pacific even ordered 23 of them to operate between pairs of Centennials in high speed service. But they cancelled it and modified existing cab equipped SD40-2's instead.
Of course there's a footnote to that since at least one line, Burlington Northern, converted several wrecked examples into boosters during the 1980's. But no factory built SD40-2B was ever constructed.
And EMD's 1966 introduction of the 645 engine line included a DD40 with a pair of 3,000 HP 16 cylinder 645's, spartan cab, and standard electronics for the time before EMD quickly killed the model off. Of course this one was famously resurrected with uprated engines, Dash 2 style electricals, and a wide cab a few years later.
And then there's the EMD AMT-125 that has been discussed around here lately from the 1970's intended for high speed passenger service (In many ways, an American counterpart to Bombardier's LRC locomotives for Via Rail).
Baldwin had a diesel hydraulic version of its 1600 HP Sharknose freight model.
And EMD's "Locomotive of 1975" proposal from 1957 that was a hood unit with a lot of skirting concealing most of the underframe and a lot of rounded edges. I doubt this one was ever cataloged though or taken very seriously.
And only 4 out of 10 models that Lima cataloged in 1950 when it revamped its lineup were ever built. This included A1A centercabs which i didn't mention on the previous page.
If you check in your Diesel Spotter's Guide you'll find that Ingalls Shipbuilding of Pascagoula, MS, listed 5 different locomotive models they planned to build. They built one model 4-S which was sold to the GM&O and then exited the locomotive business.
The difficulty on our parts seems to be in distinguishing between proposals that are analogous to concept cars and models that were actually offered and maybe even ordered but never built. The AMT-125 comes across as similar to a concept car while the FG9 or DD40 fall into the latter category.
In the latter category, I offer the RP20BH from Railpower. It would have had two 667 HP gensets plus a large battery pack for peak periods. UP initially ordered a batch of them but changed the order to straight RP20BD gensets before they were built.
CSSHEGEWISCH The difficulty on our parts seems to be in distinguishing between proposals that are analogous to concept cars and models that were actually offered and maybe even ordered but never built. The AMT-125 comes across as similar to a concept car while the FG9 or DD40 fall into the latter category. In the latter category, I offer the RP20BH from Railpower. It would have had two 667 HP gensets plus a large battery pack for peak periods. UP initially ordered a batch of them but changed the order to straight RP20BD gensets before they were built.
Concept cars are, by definition; models built as technology/styling demonstrators and are not intended as production models (there have been rare exceptions to this).
Correct me if I'm wrong but wouldn't have EMD gladly have built production AMT-125's if Amtrak or a commuter operator ordered them?
So I don't see your point...
Regarding the Railpower Genset line, as originally designed the units would have allowed for a battery pack to be interchanged with a diesel genset on a one for one basis, so a RR could have a hybrid or a "straight" genset just by swapping palletized elements with a forklift. There were drawings of this type of arrangement on the Railpower website when the product line was announced (and your description of UP's order is correct).
Just thought of another, EMD's GP2000. Would have been along the lines of today's Eco program, utilize original components from older GP's like the trucks, and would've carried a 8 cylinder 710G3A rated at 1950 HP. Norfolk Southern came close to ordering some according to what I've read at a couple of different places. But it was expensive and fuel prices and air quality regulations weren't as large of a factor back then as they are today so it went unbuilt and they started to explore the BL20 concept.
dmoore74Ingalls Shipbuilding of Pascagoula, MS, listed 5 different locomotive models they planned to build.
Yes, the
3-S
16-S
5-S
17A
Good thoughts everyone, keep it up!
Another entry from GE: The U18BT. I've seen one side elevation and it would have had a resemblance to the M420TR as delivered to R&S. This seems to be GE's first attempt to include a switcher in the Universal line and I'm surprised that it was even cataloged, considering that EMD had the switcher market to itself for several years.
CSSHEGEWISCH Another entry from GE: The U18BT. I've seen one side elevation and it would have had a resemblance to the M420TR as delivered to R&S. This seems to be GE's first attempt to include a switcher in the Universal line and I'm surprised that it was even cataloged, considering that EMD had the switcher market to itself for several years.
GE also proposed a U15BT which was essentially the same locomotive but with a derated engine (still an FDL 8) rated at 1,500 HP.
I have an old copy of Diesel Era that has drawings and a description,
The idea, I guess , was to offer a MP15AC equivalent..
I have a Baldwin catalog of products from 1945 that depicts some interesting unbuilt designs, including:
1000 HP C-C Road Switcher
1500 HP C-C Road Transfer (streamlined car body)
3000 HP A1A-A1A Road Locomotive
I have clickable photos of these units and more (including the experimental twin-turbo V-12 I mentioned over in the Centipede string) on our locomotive blog. Click here to see the photos:
http://railroadlocomotives.blogspot.com/2010/11/1945-baldwin-diesel-catalog.html
-Will Davis
Railroad Locomotives - My Blog
The SD39-2
Yes, it was never catalogued, but at first, neither was the GP39-2, until it was requested. So, if EMD was asked, a SD39-2 would likely have been built.
I think I read somewhere that Alco tried to sell a C640 (just a C636 with a little more horsepower), but never found any takers.
MLW actually built an M640.
That would be distinct from what the previous poster mentioned though since it had a 18 cylinder 251 to provide 4,000 HP rather than uprating the 16 cylinder model of the C-636 to push out 400 more HP which his post suggests would've been the case.
All of My reearch shows that the M640 was a 16 cylinder 251F prime mover rated at 4000 HP
Ira
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.