Alright, time for another update.
First off is an updated Genesis specification that GE offered once the P42DC failed to meet various specifications. It has the GEVO and a new cab design since the old one failed to meet crash safety standards when it was offered. I've dubbed it the Genesis II for lack of another model name and due to the numerous design differences.
New Export ALCOs:
RSC-8: A1A version of the DL-531
RSC-31: A1A version of the DL-534
RSD-31: C version of the DL-534
C515: This is the best model number that I can find for the DL515, which would have been a 8-251 version of the DL-531. ALCO also planned to modify this specification for two orders that it ultimately lost to other builders, one for Thailand and one for Pakistan.
RS20: B-B DL-541
RSC-20: A1A DL-51
Comments are welcome!
(This site has been lagging today and sometimes fails to log my keystrokes, so if any are missing I apologize.)
It is time for another update, if no one has any objections. If the formatting is a bit odd, that is because it was composed in Microsoft Word after the software deleted this post three times while I was editing it. I am not happy.
The List
GE
B18-7
U18C-North American extension of the U18B
U56
U18BT
U15BT
U33CG
B40-8(B)
C23-7
B28-7
C28-7
B23-8
B33-7
C33-7
Genesis II
U4B
U18B export unit
U18B
U10C
U20B
U26C early 16 cylinder export
EMD
DD40A
F70PHAC
SD39-DC
SD55
AMT-125
RB3600
GMDH-2
SD40-2B
GP2000
SD39-2
SDL39-2
SD59
SD49
TR12
F45B
TR9
F18
F20
G6
R
M-K
MK5000AC
MK6000AC
F-M
CFA-24
CFB-24
CPB-20
CPB-24
ALCO
PA-3
FA-4
C428
C620
C624
C636F
C636P(A)
C636P(B)
C650DH
RSD-33
SSB1 (S1 calf)
SSB2 (S2 calf)
FP3
FP6
FPC6
FP7
FPC7
RSD1B
RSC-8
RSC-31
RSD-31
C515
RS20
RSC-20
Ingalls
3-S
6-S
5-S
17A
MLW
RSC-23
RS-13
RS-24
MX412
MX415
MX612
Bombardier
HR416
HR618
HR406
Lima
800 HP BB road switcher
1600 HP center cab C-C road switcher/transfer
2400 HP center cab C-C road switcher/transfer
3200 HP CC cab unit powered by 6 free piston generators powering a turbine.
1600 HP Switcher Combo
2400HP Switcher Combo
Baldwin
1000 HP C-C Road Switcher
1500 HP C-C Road Transfer (streamlined car body)
3000 HP A1A-A1A Road Locomotive
Phases/Other
Q cab Dash-7 GEs
GE Dash 8-32C (later updated phase of C32-8 that would have been somewhat like NS's Dash 8-32Bs)
A1A EMD G16
B-B EMD G16
Early U20C with carbody similar to U13C
Since Lima diesel designations are railfan creations, we can actually apply these conventions to at least some of these never sold models.
NorthWest800 HP BB road switcher
The 800 HP road switcher would've been categorized as an LRS-800.
NorthWest1600 HP center cab C-C road switcher/transfer
The 1600 HP center-cab transfer locomotive would've been the LT-1600.
NorthWest2400 HP center cab C-C road switcher/transfer
The 2,400 HP transfer locomotive would've been the LT-2400.
NorthWest3200 HP CC cab unit powered by 6 free piston generators powering a turbine.
You may not want to modify this one, but most likely, the 3,200 HP cab unit would've been LC-3200 or LF-3200.
Lima never built a cab unit so we don't know what railfans would've gravitated towards for this one. And T for turbine is already taken by the center cab transfer models.
I'd favor LF, both because of EMD and Alco practices for cab unit freight power, and for Free Piston.
FP for Free Piston means something else entirely in EMD and Alco parlance and likely should be avoided.
NorthWest1600 HP Switcher Combo 2400HP Switcher Combo
Not sure how railfans would've categorized the drawbar connected pairs of LS-800's and LS-1200's that Lima offered for transfer duties, but never sold any of except standalone examples.
Perhaps LT-800 and LT-1200? Can't reflect their combined horsepower with these, since it conflicts with center cab transfer locomotives that were catalogued but never sold.
And while you could borrow some EMD terminology and call them LTR's, these wouldn't of been configured as cow-calfs like their EMD counterparts. Both halves of the unit would've had the standard LS cab.
NorthWest1600 HP center cab C-C road switcher/transfer 2400 HP center cab C-C road switcher/transfer
For the LT-1600 and LT-2400, as you've noted, there was the option for the locomotive to be a transfer locomotive or a road switcher equipped for higher speed operation (And a hood at one end would've been extended to provide a steam generator compartment on the road switcher versions).
While you might just want to continue to note that in your list as you have since this is pure speculation, we might've seen the rise of a different designation to denote the road switcher versions of these center cabs.
LRSC for Lima Road Switcher Centercab, perhaps? Bit of a conflict there with Alco and MLW A1A road switchers, I suppose.
Leo, excellent thoughts.
Regarding the cab unit, I may not change it as I doubt railfans would even bother with a designation. Instead, it would probably be known as the Lima Turbine just like other turbines such as the Blue Goose and UP's turbines, which I believe had model numbers lost to common usage. Especially since any testbed produced would have run into the problems that doomed the FG9 in all likelihood, and would not have been duplicated despite Lima's insistance that it was the way to go over 1500HP. The merger with Baldwin might've killed any half built unit, too, it constuction was authorized.
As you have pointed out, the switcher combos do present problems. Since most of the point of buying cow-calf sets is avoiding the cost of the second cab, it is interesting that that was not an option. Perhaps if Oliver Mining had made a special request something would be done? LC for Lima Combo or LDS for Lima Double Switchers? I'll think more about this.
I think I prefer LRSC. I'll think more on this and create a new list tomorrow. I had to write this using [ b] tags and am out of patience for the software tonight.
For the first three I proposed (The LRS-800, the LT-1600, and the LT-2400), I'd definitely suggest using those since there's no ambiguity there.
We can safely infer what these would now be known as by railfans, had any actually been ordered and produced.
Any idea if we've covered everything that Lima catalogued, but never built? That only 4 of the 10 models introduced in their April 1950 line was actually ever built is well known, but I'm unsure if we've accounted for all six that never saw an example constructed.
NorthWestSince most of the point of buying cow-calf sets is avoiding the cost of the second cab, it is interesting that that was not an option.
I'm sure that Lima would've accommodated a customer that wanted a calf at a reduced price.
Wonder if they were ever approached? Not much, if any overlap there between EMD TR customers and those that bought Lima's.
NorthWestRegarding the cab unit, I may not change it as I doubt railfans would even bother with a designation.
I certainly wouldn't use my LF-3200 designation.
It never was officially catalogued and its only immediate future before Lima disappeared was going to be as a prototype, which as I recall, wasn't too far off from starting to take shape on the shop floor until Baldwin entered the picture. A name fits such a thing well, as you've said, since it was well away from entering production status although prototype construction was imminent.
That said, LF-3200 sounds good. I'd like to think that had this actually become a production model, that it would've been classified as such by railfans when these homemade classifications were made to fill a void that Lima left behind, were created back in the 1960's. :)
Leo_AmesFor the LT-1600 and LT-2400, as you've noted, there was the option for the locomotive to be a transfer locomotive or a road switcher equipped for higher speed operation (And a hood at one end would've been extended to provide a steam generator compartment on the road switcher versions).
Also, in addition to transfer and road switcher configurations, the 1,600 and 2,400 center cab units also had an A1A option. Not sure that has been mentioned yet.
I do wonder if we have covered the whole list of Limas and Baldwins as well. I'm almost certain we haven't, and those models are off just one Will Davis brochure. I just don't have any other sources I can think of to get either a list of specification numbers or proposals. Hopefully I can find some, and I would greatly appreciate anyone's help.
(Somewhat OT note on cow-calf sets: Oliver Mining's Baldwin sets were apparently a special order with the Alcos being somewhat similar; though the SSB-1 and SSB-2 were catalogued, no purchasers were found and SSB-3s and SSB-4s were not catalogued. When the SSB-9 was ordered designers must have thought "Great, now someone decides to order a calf unit"...)
At the same time, I'll add the A1A models to the phases section unless there is any objection. Thanks for your help!
I haven't seen this ever mentioned, but for another assumption that we can make, the LT-2500 that quickly superseded the LT-2400 and which was actually built for the Pennsy, probably had similar road switcher and A1A options on offer as well.
Without a reference though, that one will have to remain an assumption. But the turnaround from it first being catalogued to it being uprated an additional 100 HP was so quick, it's surely a very safe one to assume.
I think the never built LT-2400 and the production LT-2500 even shared the same model number.
Discouragingly, it appears that the BLH records were spread amongst quite a few organizations with much of it destroyed beforehand. Baldwin only seems to have advertised models that were already in production, so hopefully someone has a catalogue somewhere.
While this wasn't exactly "catalogued" it definitely wasn't built...
http://www.dieselpunks.org/profiles/blogs/sunday-streamline-40-silver
Scroll down to the drawing, third illustration from the top...
That's not 9908, it is an E5 with 9908's cab....
On reflection, that's probably what Burlington asked for at first. I wonder who talked them into the E5 as built, which looks much better....
M636C
Very interesting indeed! Since EMD proved willing to install custom noses on the E2s, I can't imagine that cost was a factor, especially since most of the E5 was a customized model anyway. Perhaps EMD had decided to standardize on the EA/E1/E3/E6 nose? It definitely looks like an EMD drawing, though.
I think I'll call this 'shovel nose E5' but I would certainly like more information.
Curious that the blogger doesn't seem to know that isn't 9908.
Thanks!
"First off is an updated Genesis specification that GE offered once the P42DC failed to meet various specifications. It has the GEVO and a new cab design since the old one failed to meet crash safety standards when it was offered. I've dubbed it the Genesis II for lack of another model name and due to the numerous design differences"
The only updated Genesis was GE's Vergara designed NGPL (Next Generation Passenger Locomotive) http://vergarastudio.com/index.php/projects/ge-next-generation-pl.html. I believe VIA Rail placed an order, but was then cancelled at a later date.
At the time there was concern regarding collision safety and the effect of "Tie Flicker" upon crews in box cab type locomotives, and this was one reason that the odd changes were made to ATSF 1 and what became ATSF 10, although Burlington never altered any of their shovel noses.
So I think EMD probably pushed the safety line and wanted it partly since it maintained the current image they were advertising for the rest of the E unit line.
If they'd succeeded earlier, 9908 might have been a single engined E5 instead of the last shovel nose...
Strangely, it is relatively common for the wrong drawing to appear and not be noticed. I think some people just don't understand drawings.
Annoyingly, even if it was a half E5 like MP's half E6, it would still have been designated by EMD as an AA...
I do wish fluting had been used more on later E units.
SD60MAC9500, that is what I was talking about. NGPL would not have been the final designation, and it may be used in the future for other locomotive proposals, thus the 'Genesis II'
NorthWest NGPL would not have been the final designation, and it may be used in the future for other locomotive proposals, thus the 'Genesis II'
This is not a 'diesel' question per se. but then neither was the Lima free-piston demonstrator: where there was a NGPL there was also an ALPS. Did Bombardier ever catalogue the Jet-Train locomotive?
Well, the JetTrain power car was built...and it did serve as a demonstrator. You've lost me at ALPS-could you elaborate? Some sort of GE turbine locomotive?
ALPS is the Advanced Locomotive Propulsion System (not a 'locomotive' as such) which was developed under John Herbst at the University of Texas, piggybacking off Strategic Defense Initiative work on generators for things like railguns. It was a very interesting project, and if you look carefully on the CEM Web site at UT you can still find an index of many of the papers regarding the MegaGen and the systems that would drive it.
In a sense this was a little reminiscent of the Borst atomic locomotive -- military technology looking for an effective peacetime use. The difference was that the ALPS system was highly suited to HSR, perhaps better than any other self-contained power system has been.
As designed. the system was designed as a hybrid, with substantial short-term energy storage capability either from the turbine power or from regeneration. This did not apparently make it to the Jet-Train demonstrator, which was basically a siamesed diesel/turbine system running a more conventional kind of alternator. My suspicion is that the Bombardier locomotive shares considerable DNA with the HHP-8, which may explain why we have heard so little of the idea even though powering the thing with, say, a C175-20 might be an interesting adaptive re-use of much of the engineering...
I think the main problems with the JetTrain were not technical or economic, but more the lack of a market. JetTrain was promised as a cheap train system for startup HSR systems such as the Texas TGV. When these proposals collapsed, so did any demand for the trains. I don't think that that has changed, and any HSR proposed now is slated to be electrified. The only existing operator that could use them, VIA, ran into money problems. I would expect the computer system, the problem with the HHP-8s, is similar to the Acela power car system.
Back to the original topic. Baldwin did catalog one export model which was never built: the DRS6-4-750.
I believe that one was built for Office Chérifien des Phosphates, but thanks for your contribution. I appreciate it! Do you have any more?
.
NorthWest I think the main problems with the JetTrain were not technical or economic, but more the lack of a market. JetTrain was promised as a cheap train system for startup HSR systems such as the Texas TGV. When these proposals collapsed, so did any demand for the trains. I don't think that that has changed, and any HSR proposed now is slated to be electrified. The only existing operator that could use them, VIA, ran into money problems. I would expect the computer system, the problem with the HHP-8s, is similar to the Acela power car system.
Just a a couple of notes on the "Jet Train". First this was really a FRA project championed by one of it's employees. Bombardier got the contract to build it as part on the Acela project. The concept, as described by that FRA employee was to use something like it to extend Acela service to Richmond and Norfolk. FRA also sponsored the demonstration tour. The fact the builder wasn't much interested in it was reflected in the fact that they didn't even bid for the Midwest High Speed train sets in the late 90's.
Of course the $ went away, the FRA employee retired and some defect was found with the turbine and it was condemned. The unit has languished in Pueblo for years now and is used as a training prop for TSA.
Several years ago FRA did express some interest in re engining it, but again it was pretty much a single employee behind the interest.
The builder's North American group has expressed no interest, but when observing some of the ALP45DM testing the head of the European locomotive division was somewhat interested. He said his approach would multiple smaller diesels, but nothing has come of that interest.
The Alco C620 has been mentioned as an offered item several times here. Has anyone found a drawing of the proposed engine? There is a thread at the MT forum on modeling one and this seems like a good place to ask.
A big question is would it have been on the C628/630 frame or a short one like the RSD-12.
Thanks! (Now to see what it would have looked like in G&W G&D colors...)
How about the ES23B?
http://www.railroad.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=63019
I am reluctant to add the ES23B until it is officially out of the catalogue. Since it is a rebuild any older GE core would eliminate the need for Tier IV compliance.
That said, I doubt we will ever see any constructed because of the lack of a market. As you said on that other forum, there isn't any demand for GEs in secondary service. The 4-axle Dash-8s have begun to be retired. EMDs and EMD repowers will hold down all those jobs.
Thanks for bringing this thread back!
LensCapOn The Alco C620 has been mentioned as an offered item several times here. Has anyone found a drawing of the proposed engine? There is a thread at the MT forum on modeling one and this seems like a good place to ask. A big question is would it have been on the C628/630 frame or a short one like the RSD-12. Thanks! (Now to see what it would have looked like in G&W G&D colors...)
The experts say it would have been on the same frame as the C-628.
The shovel-nose E5? Unfortunately no, all we have is that one (incomplete) drawing.
NorthWestThat said, I doubt we will ever see any constructed because of the lack of a market. As you said on that other forum, there isn't any demand for GEs in secondary service.
But isn't this so, in large part, because by the time you fix the other stuff that goes wrong on older GE cores, notably all the wretched rubber pieces in the B trucks, you're too far over budget (compared to, say, the usual form of 'Blomberg' EMD truck) to justify the project for "typical" use of an engine of this power?
I'm not so sure that it is primarily that-witness dozens of UP gensets running around on FB-2 trucks-but rather the large amount of second-generation and newer EMD power still around.
GEs have never been candidates for the kind of EMD capital rebuilding for a variety of reasons, including parts supply, quality issues (whether actual or percieved), etc. There have just always been enough EMDs without those issues to fill the limited amount of secondary roles. NS for example is about to scrap their B32-8s while older EMDs are in rebuilding programs.
I think it is important to note that EMD hasn't really done that many ECO repowers either when the fleet of second-generation diesels is considered. Also, the similar EMD BL20-2 and GE Super-7 programs of the '90s also failed to find markets.
NorthWestI'm not so sure that it is primarily that-witness dozens of UP gensets running around on FB-2 trucks-but rather the large amount of second-generation and newer EMD power still around.
And while I'm not sure of their current status since I know that there have been retirements as their need has decreased, they also converted 70 B23-7's and B30-7's into CCRCL platforms back in the early to middle part of the last decade. They of course retained their GE trucks.
For those that don't know what that means, it stands for Control Car Remote Control Locomotive. Basically, it allows any locomotive to be MU'ed to one of these former locomotives and be controlled remotely by a man on the ground, with the CCRCL containing all the remote control equipment.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.