Someone just posted on {FORUM NAME REDACTED} in a string about our locomotive blog having been revived that "at least some of Conrail's last order of U23B's had CHEC excitation."
That order was built (as I said over there) in May, 1977. I think these were the last U-series locomotives built. This information merges well with my working assumptions about the introduction of CHEC correlating roughly with introduction of GE turbos.
-Will Davis
Railroad Locomotives - My Blog
Interesting! Some details of engine control that almost never get mentioned in the railfan press.
- Erik
Thank you, very fascinating.
Will DavisAll right.. you asked for it!
THANK YOU!!!
All right.. you asked for it! I had it built on the word processor so luckily it was saved. Original post below but with a couple of edits / additions.
-----
I did a bit of checking as to the excitation and governor fitting that the PC U33B units would likely have had and came up with the following.
First, a quick look at a roster at The Diesel Shop website shows all of the PC U33B units having been built between 11/68 and 6/70. (I don't have anything in print on PC diesels here for a roster - NYC, PRR yes but I cut off at the start of PC.)
Using that information, a quick check of GEJ-3866, Educational Manual / Model U33 Diesel-Electric Locomotive published 1/71 (and also identically republished 2/73; I have both) tells us that the U33 had the 400 Hz transistorized excitation system; this did not have an input for turbocharger speed. (For you tech guys, this is a pulse width modulation system.)
Looking at GEJ-3869, Diesel Engine Mechanical Service Manual, Diesel-Electric Locomotive published 5/70 (and which covers models U23, U30, U33 and U36) we find application of a two-slope pressure-bias and load control limiter model governor.
This sends me, out of sheer curiosity, to the handy Locomotive Unit Exchange and Repair Services manual, from which it's the easiest to figure out what original equipment was fitted on locomotives in a generic sense. I see several models of governor applied to U33 locomotives; but since part numbers always go up in GE nomenclature as parts get newer, we can examine the first few models even if we don't have dates. Or, seeing the wide variety, maybe just the first model...
Model 136X1740 is listed for U33 and U36 in one table; in a second that governor's 1977 unit exchange replacement, the 136X1740-5R is described under the heading for "Chec excitation" as NO, and under the heading of "Air Sensing (Pressure Bias)" as Yes - Fuel Limit. (That matches what is described in GEJ-3866 and GEJ-3869.) This however doesn't really illustrate the fact (fully explained in excruciating detail back in GEJ-3869) that the governor will act, upon having too low an intake manifold pressure for the given speed, to limit excitation first before it begins to limit (reduce) fuel by operating the ORS linkage. This -5R however is a modified version of the governor and might not be original or rather identical to original models. (Note the "R" suffix.)
So, trying to see if I can come up with any useful data on this governor originally or later versions of the original (prior to the Unit Exchange program) I then get out GEK-30130 which is a big heavy Conrail-specific manual for its GE locomotives' diesel engines and systems. (It covers all Conrail GE locomotives, including those from all previous owners and also Conrail units up through I think the C30-7 purchase.) Sure enough, in instruction GEK-29332 I find on page 3 that same governor model - the original one - listed for the U33. (It also applies to the U36 - both have engine speed schedule "C" which means 1050 RPM maximum.) I then track that number to GEK-29462H, Governor Data which includes "data pertaining to two-slope pressure bias control, those equipped with fuel limit control, and those equipped with altitude compensation" and find not the original but do find a 1740-1 which fuel limits at 49 inches Hg absolute manifold pressure and has an 11-13 psi low water shutdown (integral in the governor); a 1740-2 which is the same as the -1 but adds dual speed load control timing; a 1740-3 which is the same as the -2 but adds a 46 psi lube oil shutdown; a 1740-4 which is the same as the -3 but has lowered pressure-bias settings; there's no -5 but the -6 changes to a 12 pin connector (and replaces the -5) and also omits the No. 1 pressure bias setting screw. The 1740-7 is the same but adds an ORS lever.
So the original governor with no appended model number must have been very quickly superseded and deleted, judging by this drive through the weeds of part numbers. Nowhere in any of that does CHEC appear, although there are a number of other governors that were available for the U33 over time that came after this 136X1740 range.
Right now the biggest hint that I have which tells me that the CHEC excitation appeared when the GE turbochargers appeared is the fact that none of the GE turbochargers of any model are available (in the 1978 Unit Exchange manual) without CHEC excitation, whereas all of the previously used Elliott turbos are available with or without (and there are details on converting the Elliott turbos to CHEC excitation not only here but in other manuals.) So right now that's my guess -- 1976, when the GE turbo appeared, CHEC excitation appeared... or somewhere right around that.
One further hint - in the large Conrail manual I find a single page GEK-61347 "CHEC" Turbochargers and Magnetic Probes which covers installing the probe and magnets on the turbochargers if used in "CHEC" locomotives, or instructions on using a "CHEC" turbo in a non-CHEC equipped locomotive. The date of this instruction is 12/76 and there appear to be no revisions (indicated on GE pubs by bars on the outside of revised text / illustrations) which might make this the original issue of this notification.
All speculative and circumstantial, but it's the best I have since I can find no GE advertising material announcing CHEC excitation and the turbo speed sensors.
--------
There's the original post with just a couple edits as I'd constructed it last night. To make it clear - the U33B during the time frame we're talking about here didn't use turbo speed as an input to control (excitation) equipment. Rather, it used intake manifold pressure as an input to governor control equipment; the units also had a fuel limit device interposed in the fuel rack linkage which would act to reduce fuel injection if intake manifold air temperature got too high. (This same device also performed the overspeed shutdown function, with input from an external overspeed governor.)
Overmod Will DavisChecked a bunch of documentation last night; had constructed a gigantic post but it was all part numbers and what not -- probably very boring to read. Maybe so... but please post it anyway...
Will DavisChecked a bunch of documentation last night; had constructed a gigantic post but it was all part numbers and what not -- probably very boring to read.
Maybe so... but please post it anyway...
I'd like to see it as well.
The turbo speed module card on CHEC has a micro selector switch for either an Elliot or a GE turbo.
Checked a bunch of documentation last night; had constructed a gigantic post but it was all part numbers and what not -- probably very boring to read.
PC's U33B units were all built prior to 1972 and so would have had the 400 Hz transistorized excitation system, BCO65 (Elliott) turbochargers with no CHEC excitation, and Woodward governors with two slope pressure bias load control scheme with the modulating input being intake manifold pressure and not turbo RPM.
M636C: That's indeed the B28-7, and there's a C28-7 listed as well.
As to the PC U33B's dropping load when notched out.. I believe that these units were too early to have CHEC Excitation, but they did have the simple pressure-bias governor that fuel limited based on intake manifold pressure. (Single slope pressure-bias governor.) I'll look more at the manufacturer catalogs and manuals later today but I see either BCO65 or BCO80 turbochargers for these as new (these are Elliot turbos, not GE turbos which appeared in 1976.)
Does anyone out there have a firm date for when CHEC Excitation was introduced? I cannot find a firm date in literature. I have seen patents as early as 1973 for it; I own a large GE manual which has a section for these two turbochargers dated 1972 and there's no mention of the speed sensing probe. This situation is a bit murky later on as CHEC turbochargers could be backfitted to many models, and kits were issued to install CHEC excitation components into turbochargers that didn't originally have the components. GE also offered unit-exchange CHEC excitation turbochargers.
Nobody seems to have commented on the second rating of the 12 cylinder shown on the cover of the GEA-10016 Brochure.
Just below the B23-7 caption is what appears to be B28-7 (or possibly B26-7), it isn't that clear in the reproduction, even as enlarged.
There was of course the 2600 HP rating in export locomotives dating back some time, but this is clearly what eventually appeared as the B30-7A, there being little interest in intermediate ratings, as EMD found with the GP49.
M636C.
Thanks! This gives even more to check with the Eesti Raudtee fleet management. Though I doubt these guys agree because the Russian locomotives must use even more lube oil.
DwightBranch Santa Fe sold their 8000s/ C30-7s early, around 1992, when they were only 15 or so years old. I remember the first one I saw with the numbers and Santa Fe name painted out in 1992, it was a surprise at the time to becasue they were so ubiquitous, they seemed to lead most fast trains then, not 199/991 the UPS train which got the newest four axle power, but 981 the perishable train for instance. 5100s/ SD40-2s were more popular with crews but the 8100s were quieter and were almost always on the point in the 1980s. What I heard at the time was that the railroad was mad about high lube oil consumption (lube oil is expensive) and excessive/ premature power assembly wear, and was unsatisfied with the solutions offered by GE.
Santa Fe sold their 8000s/ C30-7s early, around 1992, when they were only 15 or so years old. I remember the first one I saw with the numbers and Santa Fe name painted out in 1992, it was a surprise at the time to becasue they were so ubiquitous, they seemed to lead most fast trains then, not 199/991 the UPS train which got the newest four axle power, but 981 the perishable train for instance. 5100s/ SD40-2s were more popular with crews but the 8100s were quieter and were almost always on the point in the 1980s. What I heard at the time was that the railroad was mad about high lube oil consumption (lube oil is expensive) and excessive/ premature power assembly wear, and was unsatisfied with the solutions offered by GE.
Gentlemen: Great discussions. I'm just getting back into train watching after being out of it for about 30 years. (now you know about how old I am) I just found this sight today.
Question: What is the 'Tags' thing all about?
Will, I agree with the balanced history. I think that the more information we can pass on to the future, the better. The internet makes it so much easier, such as your blog. Excellent work. I found some pictures of GE 750 in UP paint, but the site is down now so I can't link them.
The GE dash 7 and latter U30-36 engines dropped their load when you changed throttle positions because of the addition of a turbo speed sensor and the module to go with it. It stopped the diesel from smoking when you changed notches.
GE did improve the dash 7 engine and listened to the customers. They introduced the Dash 8 locomotive.
Thank you for the backgrounder Northwest!
Yes, I suppose and hope these share many of the ES44AC components, making them very effective and durable. I can hardly wait to get those in front of the camera and talk with the personnel.They will be aesthetically much better than those hideous Russian 2Te116 contraptions they will replace.
NorthWest The C30-7A is a C30-7 with a 12 cylinder FDL, as opposed to the standard 16 cylinder FDL. Both the B30-7 and B36-7 both used the 7FDL-16, with less HP/Cylinder on the B30-7. MP had some B23-7s upgraded with the "stronger" prime mover, offering 3000HP instead of the standard 2300. MP also had 55 built new, all called the B30-7A. The C30-7A is a six motor version, only built for Conrail. New TE33As? Interesting. These are essentially mechanically ES44ACs, right? They don't look too bad, but I prefer the -7 line aesthetically.
The C30-7A is a C30-7 with a 12 cylinder FDL, as opposed to the standard 16 cylinder FDL.
Both the B30-7 and B36-7 both used the 7FDL-16, with less HP/Cylinder on the B30-7.
MP had some B23-7s upgraded with the "stronger" prime mover, offering 3000HP instead of the standard 2300. MP also had 55 built new, all called the B30-7A. The C30-7A is a six motor version, only built for Conrail.
New TE33As? Interesting. These are essentially mechanically ES44ACs, right? They don't look too bad, but I prefer the -7 line aesthetically.
Here is one of the current ERS 2Te116 units. The hop from the ancient technology to latest state of the art modern machines will be huge.
Thanks for all of the replies, and to everyone for launching off a very worth-while discussion. I have some observations after having read the string, in no particular order.
1. There's no easy way to say this first one, so I'll just say it - we've had the railroaders' perspective of the early GE units clearly stated in many, many railfan articles and railfan forums for decades. We all know all of the complaints most often cited with early GE units, especially U-series units --- slow loading, cold cab / lousy heaters, awful throttle mechanism (early units U25/U28 with KC-99 controller), tendency to slip all axles simultaneously, poor ability to control load at low speeds and high throttle settings. Smoke. Unintended engine shutdowns. Radiator intakes that suck your jacket / shirt against them when you walk by, getting them and/or you filthy. Blowing exhaust into the cab through the vents. Can't reach governor reset button easily. We get lots and lots of that - there's just a ton of that over in {insert other railroad internet forum here} where I used to spend most of my time, as well as in various Yahoo Groups on railroads and GE locomotives.
I'm not saying "enough is enough" or any such thing. What I am saying is that realistically there's NO shortage of the viewpoint of railroaders on raifan forums overall and in publications overall over time if you seek it out. What there IS is a shortage of is the viewpoint of the manufacturer -- and the people who design the units. This means details -- not just what models were offered and what their characteristics were (horsepower, weight.) It means design features like I've laid out in the piece on the New Series Locomotives.
Of course this makes sense; many thousands of railroaders, only dozens of locomotive design engineers at any one time. The railroaders vastly outnumber the manufacturing guys. For what it's worth, my experience has been generally that many railroaders don't think the locomotive designers know what they're doing, while sometimes the locomotive designers think that the railroads don't know what they've bought and that the railroaders don't know how to operate or maintain it. It's a two way street.
The viewpoint of the operator of course clearly does matter, and it does get back to the manufacturers and always has so long as it wasn't trumped. I'll address that process next.
2. It's not entirely true that sales material is directed only at accountants or railroad management with no idea of operations. I'd suggest trying to find old copies of the sessions (they printed out every spoken word!) of the Railway Fuel and Operating Officers' Association annual meetings. (We have a pile of these.) In those sessions, railroad officers who know more than a thing or two about train operation interfaced directly with the manufacturers, who seemed (at least during the span through the 1960's and into the early 1970's where our RFOOA transcriptions cover) never to miss one of these meetings. EMD, GE and ALCO were almost always there with presentations. There are many operational issues discussed; sometimes, the question and answer sessions are also transcribed and these make it clear that the railroads' feedback to the builders is derived from operations, and that it's getting to the manufacturers. Their responses make it clear that decisions are being made about changes to the locomotives when warranted.
There's one example that sticks out -- the displeasure with early U25/U28 controls (especially the throttle lever and its operation) led directly to the change to the KC-102 controller which GE described as having a throttle handle that was "short and easy to operate," and the new control stand that came with it.
There's another example that sticks out - I think maybe it was the last session that ALCO had at the RFOOA meeting before quitting - where ALCO set out feedback / request forms at the back of the room for all of the railroad representatives and union representatives to write things they'd like to see changed in locomotives, which the ALCO rep says he'll take back to HQ after the meeting. My point in bringing up ALCO here only is to show that such big meetings were one of a number of direct interface opportunities between railroad men and locomotive men and that communication was happening. Or at least available...
It seems to me that after GE broke into the market with a farily dogmatic attitude (which surely all GE divisions have, have always had, and will continue to have to some degree) and it pushed its product out as widely as possible that it was only after considerable effort that it took ALCO's spot as No. 2 builder. Only after that time do you begin to see real response (in the transcriptions) to feedback being provided by the railroads in terms of any comfort / convenience items. In other words, I could make a case through evidence of these annual meetings that although GE entered the market in 1960 it didn't really start actively incorporating massive amounts of railroad feedback into the product until the latter half of the 1960's in these areas. GE's responses to railroaders prior to that point seem to be much more defensive than interactive and frankly cover mechanical and compatibility problems. That's very likely a necessary part of introducing a machine perceived (and indeed advertised) as radically different from what's been offered prior -- and the U25B surely was such a product.
As to BigJim's question as to why GE didn't fix the access problem, steps and exposed bolts and so on outside the locomotive -- well, the answer seems pretty clear. They had bigger fish to fry! Early on, GE was having problems with burned wheels / excessive brake shoe wear / slipped traction motor pinions on the U25B. Those problems clearly spoke the loudest - and you have to lick those if you're to stay in the market. Once massive problems like those were licked, you DO see GE addressing operator issues -- note the change to the new throttle lever for the U33 (KC-102 I mentioned) and also note the AAR clean cab some time later. And electric cab heat standard on the New Series Locomotives. I'd bet that went on until finally GE could address the kind of items BigJim brings up. While most of the folks who designed the very early GE's are likely gone, the folks who designed the very new units might be able to tell us that part of the story.
3. OVERMOD has hit a home run with his post. I'd suggest going over to {other unnamed railroad forum not associated with a magazine} and looking through the GE section. There are gems there like the U33B having the peculiar characteristic that it reduced load momentarily when the throttle was opened*; gems like engineers removing the controller spring in U25 units to make the throttle easier to operate; and many many more. There are many others in many venues elsewhere. Overmod is right - reliability and operator comfort are NOT equivalent in driving market share. Operator comfort is way, way down the list if a manufacturer's product isn't reliable anyway.
4. Thanks for those wonderful photos of the overseas units, McKey! Great shots and very clear. I'm afraid I can't help with information specifically about the units, though.
5. Overmod - I might be able to get you that operating experience on the Baldwins, at least the "sharks" anyway, and on Lima-Hamilton road switchers. I have a relative who ran both of these on the New York Central, on the Big Four.
* This was noted by Noel Weaver, who ran U33B units (and everything else) on the Penn Central. He posted this fact, and if I recall correctly I looked at the excitation circuit for the U33 and noted that if one or another capacitor were "leaky" in the excitation reference level circuit (this is how GE locomotives trainline their excitation signal, an essential part of the 16 notch throttle control) then you could very well see an initial lowering of voltage on the reference level line any time you changed voltage input. This is part of the rate limit circuitry that controls how rapidly the excitation reference level can possibly increase. GE had actually mentioned this rate limit feature in one of the RFOOA sessions and described the effect railroaders would see as "rounding off the notches" in terms loading response. So we were able with that event to put together railroad experience (of course, in a failure scenario), actual locomotive (circuit) design, and an actual statement from one of the designers as to why this feature was there in the first place. This might well be the exact sort of thing Overmod is talking about when he describes a 'best balance' history.
No one wanted to go to the rear engines to reset relays and stuff. The radiator hatch would nearly strip you naked if you were in notch 8. That's only if the bolts from the air filter housing didn't rip your pants off first.
The main high voltage cabinet was under the floor on the conductors side (you need a ladder to take a peek) and all the low voltage stuff was in the "spare bedroom" behind the cab.
They like burning holes on the rail too.
But the cabs were a lot quieter than the EMDs
I'd expect the first line of 'objective' proof to be articles in union publications, or indeed in union grievances. Someone should probably do this. (Note: I would like to see this done clearly for first-generation Baldwins!)
I do think that matters came to a head with NS operating GE locos long hood forward when more and more employees started making safety claims after they were sickened by diesel fumes coming in the cabs. I think the union did step in and got things changed to short hood forward running for all brands of locomotives.
Other than the ergonomically poor design issues that I have already stated, if I remember correctly, these units had a lot of problems with overheating diodes which quickly brought the train to a halt on the hills. This caused delays of 15-20 mins. waiting for the diodes to cool down so that the unit would load again. It was then a lucky crew that made it over the top before the diodes overheated again.
I think these were also the units with the electrical panel in a separate compartment behind the cab. Another pain in the butt trying to reset relays. Not that it was their job, but, few trainmen knew how or would take the initiative to go back and reset relays while moving, in which case the train stopped again so the engineer could go back and get the unit running again, if the relays would reset at all.
.
As far as I know the C30-7A was the 12 cylinder 3000 HP 7 fdl engine instead of the 16 cylinder 3000 hp 7fdl
The C30-7A all came from the UP.
Manufacturer's sales liturature is directed to management and bean counter types that issue contracts to buy (or lease) locomotives - not the blue collar, dirt under the fingernail types that actually use and maintain them.
As we all know from out dealings with manufacturers of automobiles and our use of them - there is a world of difference between the manufacturers sales liturature and our actual use of the vehicles.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
What does the letter A here stand for, I've always thought these were just C30-7is, but more and more often I come across the C30-tAi? A cab unit?
The cranskshaft failure would then also spell the C36-7i failure at some point? Unless it is cheap enough to replace.
Of course there will 16 new GEs in Estonia this year too, disguised as Tem33As. So this definitely is an important if small country for the manufacturer.
Randy Stahl A large part of the Estoian fleet was made up of C30-7A models. They had the 12 cylinder fdl. Also they had the original dash 7 electrical equipment removed and the GE "brightstar" system installed. I believe the Estonian locomotives were retired as the crankshafts failed, much like the remaining fleet of C30s in this country.
A large part of the Estoian fleet was made up of C30-7A models. They had the 12 cylinder fdl. Also they had the original dash 7 electrical equipment removed and the GE "brightstar" system installed. I believe the Estonian locomotives were retired as the crankshafts failed, much like the remaining fleet of C30s in this country.
You can also picture this poor guy with two cameras trying to get down the ladder at the front end with two cameras . Not to mention about 8' tall travel companion with camera...
Randy Stahl I always thought it was good entertainment watching large crewmen extricating themselves from the locomotive cabs. On gent in particular was large enough that the locomotive appeared to giving birth..
I always thought it was good entertainment watching large crewmen extricating themselves from the locomotive cabs. On gent in particular was large enough that the locomotive appeared to giving birth..
Randy
BigJim... Indeed the mechanical/electrical side of history needs to be correctly documented. You have listed many improvements under the car body, however, you have not discussed why GE did not improve the outside of the locomotive to make it safer and more user friendly. Note straight up and down steps, narrow running boards that could only be navigated sideways and brushing up against dirty greasy body panels and exposed ends of threaded bolts just waiting to rip clothing and cause injury.... You are well on the way to one side of the story. Don't forget the other side that had to suffer with these locos until a true improvement came along with the Dash 9.
Jim, this brings up an important point about historiography.
The only way we're ever going to be able to document the "user" perspective of locomotive development is if those users carefully document their observations and problems. What we need to do is find some balance between the 'company' side, which can be well-documented and, with care, objectively correct (as when Mr. Davis does the work) and the men's side, which may have to be assembled from a great many sources with all the dubious effects of memory involved. I'd expect the first line of 'objective' proof to be articles in union publications, or indeed in union grievances. Someone should probably do this. (Note: I would like to see this done clearly for first-generation Baldwins!)
It bears noting, I think, what GE's target audience in the brochures was... the group of people who would be impressed with the very specific sort of detail improvements that were being listed. The emphasis is on reliability, not usability per se (and not really ease-of-use). In other words, I see GE oriented toward impressing railroad personnel at a particular level in the hierarchy: their jobs involved making road power more reliable, but did not involve discussions or interaction with the men and women who ran the things. Instead, you have secondhand discussion of design details that OUGHT to satisfy the operating crews... standard electric heat, safer cab, better toilet location that is not an afterthought. But -- notice! -- no focus groups, no actually asking crews about other improvements, until the -9 series.
That is sensible GE-style business policy, perhaps. Target the actual decision-makers, not people who don't affect bottom-line sales and support. What I now wonder is if evolving GE policy actually did begin to involve those who had to run the locomotives, not just maintain them -- and if this directly led to ergonomic and practical improvements in the locomotives that benefited crew satisfaction. Note that this parallels GE's development in a number of parallel technical areas during this time period.
Big Jim: can you provide either a starting list of issues with the older GE power, or some sources of reasonably-reliable opinion on them (i.e. describing the problems in detail rather than just the "GEs sucked" nafboi sort of thing...) You are correct: we need to balance the industry picture with the 'bleeding-edge' picture. And then come to some agreement as to what sources and approaches represent the best historiography.
Should anyone of you on this forum know the exact units from the past rosters of the C30-7 and C36-7, I would greatly appreciate this information, and I start building the 4rail.net Estonian page for the C307is of Eesti Raudtee.
Would it be so that at least part of the roster was before painted bright blue with white lettering (CR)? Was the other part of the C30s from UP?
And all the elecrical wiring and controls were refurbished before these were taken into use.
It is incredible how silent the big C30-7is are inside the cab when running!
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.