SSW9389 A head on collision at Aurich, Arkansas in the morning fog of November 29, 1949 destroyed FTA 921 and sent the entire diesel set of four units back to LaGrange for rebuild. The 923-922-924 returned with a new coat of SP Black Widow paint and the 921 returned riding on a new F7 frame. All Cotton Belt FTs received the Black Widow colors.
What type of solid drawbars were used between the units? How did the roundhouse folks disconnect them?
I discussed Cotton Belt #921 with Joe Strapac on October 3rd and 4th at the Cotton Belt Symposium in Commerce, Texas. Joe agreed that the 921 was on a new frame and that EMD would have placed as many new components in the unit so that it could stand behind any warranty on the parts. The unit looks like a strectched FT as the FT side panels and dynamic brakes were reused in the rebuild. I made the original rediscovery of this rebuild on August 17th last year, so it was well after the SP Diesel Compendium was published. There is a photo of the rebuilt 921 on pages 40-41 of Steve Goen's Cotton Belt Color Pictorial and a photo of it appeared on EBay back in May. Cotton Belt considered the rebuild to be an FT as that is how it is shown in Special Instruction rosters of the 1950s.
SSW9389 I discussed Cotton Belt #921 with Joe Strapac on October 3rd and 4th at the Cotton Belt Symposium in Commerce, Texas. Joe agreed that the 921 was on a new frame and that EMD would have placed as many new components in the unit so that it could stand behind any warranty on the parts. The unit looks like a strectched FT as the FT side panels and dynamic brakes were reused in the rebuild. I made the original rediscovery of this rebuild on August 17th last year, so it was well after the SP Diesel Compendium was published. There is a photo of the rebuilt 921 on pages 40-41 of Steve Goen's Cotton Belt Color Pictorial and a photo of it appeared on EBay back in May. Cotton Belt considered the rebuild to be an FT as that is how it is shown in Special Instruction rosters of the 1950s.
SSW 9839 was kind enough to link me a photo of the accident offline.
Indeed the frame broke behind the cab but possibly at the generator well in the frame and I'd be surprised if the engine and generator could be re-used. The forward radiators look as though they could have survived and it is possible that the dynamic brakes, at least the resistors, might have survived.
However the cab did its job and the crew survived.
Even at this time I imagine that EMD would have had a range of unit exchange components for use in these occasions. Presumably anything up to a current F7 could have been provided with a range of repair charges depending on what you needed and wanted. An FT on the available frame must have met the SSW's needs.
M636C
Just to mention: this thread has my vote for 'best technical thread of the year' so far. Wish we had this level of interest and scholarship -- and good handling of discourse -- in many other areas of discussion!
It might be worthwhile explaining a little of the background to my discussion with SSW9389 regarding EMD rebuilding locomotives in the early 1950s.
Let us look at what happened to the iconic Santa Fe E-1 units 2-9 and the E-2 from the 1937 City of San Francisco that ended up with Southern Pacific.
These units had the V-12 201A engine of 900 HP and auxiliaries like radiator fans driven by vee belts, and both of these were regarded as maintenance intensive by 1950, by comparison with the 567B and AC motor driven fans. But much of the electrical equipment, in particular the main generators, traction motors and even the trucks were still in excellent condition.
The preferred EMD answer was to build a set of new E-8s for Santa Fe using the trucks motors and generators from the E-1s (and the prototypes 1 and 1A). The power of the E-8s was reduced to 2000 HP due to the old generators, and these were called an E-8m.
At the time ATSF was one of EMD's best customers and the rebuild kept both builder and operator happy. ATSF never bought another E unit, having bought passenger equipped FTs and they never looked back.
Having inherited the old E-2A SF-1 which was equivalent to the ATSF E-1s, Southern Pacific had the same problem. A new E-8 would have done the job but SP may have felt the cost was too high.
In the end they built effectively a new E-7 on the old frame with a lot of material provided by EMD.
The first question I asked was why build an E-7 instead of an E-8? Using the original frame, which was set up for the two engines facing the same way with the generator (requiring a well in the frame) at the front, the latest available design was the E-7, which had an improved layout but still used mechanically driven auxiliaries. The E-8 had the engines arranged with generators together at the centre.
But SP got its new E-7 with 567B engines and it lasted as long as the others.
To get back to FT units, Santa Fe lost an A unit, 107L and took the EMD preffered route, getting a GP-7m which had the 567A engine and trucks from the FT but little else. As a 1350 HP unit the new GP-7 was numbered 99, just below the first FT. Years later the unit got a standard 567B and was renumbered 2899 as the highest numbered GP-7.
So there were a number of options that the SSW could have exercised with 921, it could have got a new F-3 with surviving components (both trucks looked OK, for example) but they elected that a standard FT be built using an available new frame, slightly longer than the original.
Peter
NP EddieWhat type of solid drawbars were used between the units? How did the roundhouse folks disconnect them?
From pictures I have seen, they are a rectangular bar with loops on the end. Something like below.
O====O
This was connected to the frame by some sort of pin.
Last weekend I identified another Cotton Belt FTA that had been rebuilt on an F7 frame. So there are two of a kind of these rebuilds, not one of a kind like SSW 921. This second rebuild predates the first by about a year. And I found it in a photo in Trains magazine. See the article Fast Freight by David P. Morgan in the November 1949 Trains page 48. The unit in question is Cotton Belt 920D. Upon magnification you can see the overhanging frame at the back of the unit, indicating rebuild on a new frame. The 920D was wrecked at Renault, Illinois on November 16, 1948. And it only took 66 years to reveal this rebuild fact.
M636CThe preferred EMD answer was to build a set of new E-8s for Santa Fe using the trucks motors and generators from the E-1s (and the prototypes 1 and 1A). The power of the E-8s was reduced to 2000 HP due to the old generators, and these were called an E-8m.
Is this also true of the B&O E8m design that kept the E6 slant nose?
Wizlish M636C Is this also true of the B&O E8m design that kept the E6 slant nose?
B&O's E-8m's had a E-8 carbody, not the E-6 slant nose.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
BaltACD Wizlish M636C Is this also true of the B&O E8m design that kept the E6 slant nose? B&O's E-8m's had a E-8 carbody, not the E-6 slant nose.
I was fooled by the Farr grilles on the rebuild into thinking this was E8m too:
Did this locomotive remain 'ordinary' E6 mechanically and electrically?
In general it was only the 201A locomotives that were completely rebuilt into E-8s except for wreck rebuilds on most railroads. The Union Pacific had everything older than an E-8 rebuilt eventually.
But all the B&O EA and EBs were rebuilt as E-8s, initially retaining the same number.
The rebuilt E-6 units would have retained the original layout of both engines with the generator leading and mechanically driven radiator fans. The engines might have been upgraded to a later design and possibly fitted with C-type liners if they were available.
Wizlish BaltACD Wizlish M636C Is this also true of the B&O E8m design that kept the E6 slant nose? B&O's E-8m's had a E-8 carbody, not the E-6 slant nose. I was fooled by the Farr grilles on the rebuild into thinking this was E8m too: Did this locomotive remain 'ordinary' E6 mechanically and electrically?
To my knowledge E-6's remained E-6's during their lifetime, however, internal modifications may have been made. B&O applied the stainless steel grill work to a number of engines, both freight and passenger during their periods of major shop time.
There are several discrepancies between the EMC 103 map used in the February 1960 issue and the November 2014 issue. The 2014 map shows 22 railroads, while the 1960 map shows 20 railroads. The differences are the PRR and SP are added to the 2014 map. The 2014 map shows routes in 31 states, while the 1960 map correctly shows all 35 states. The routes to Portland, ME and White River Jct, VT are missing in the 2014 map. As are the Southern Railway routes to Atlanta and Birmingham missing from the 2014 map. The 2014 map shows the M&SL route from Mason City, IA to Peoria, IL. And the PRR trackage from Peoria to Valparaiso, IN. The 1960 map doesn't show the total M&SL route or any PRR trackage. It appears that neither map is correct in entirety.
And I note that the 103 operated on 47 miles of the Cotton Belt while it was demonstrating for the Missouri Pacific between Dupo, IL and Texarkana.
Ed in Kentucky
B&O's E6 fleet, minus the #52 that was scrapped, were rebuilt to E8 standards internally in the mid 1950's and carried a 2,250hp rating when they were retired in 1968 after becoming surplus due to declining passenger traffic.
Leo_Ames B&O's E6 fleet, minus the #52 that was scrapped, were rebuilt to E8 standards internally in the mid 1950's and carried a 2,250hp rating when they were retired in 1968 after becoming surplus due to declining passenger traffic.
52 was an EA as were all those that were upgraded and defined as E8m's
E6's remained E6's to the scrap yard.
B&O's first 52 was an EA-EB consist, the A unit of which I recall having been transferred to the Alton to operate with boxcab 50, which B&O had previously transferred. B&O's second 52 was an E6 A unit (which for awhile was distinguishable from the other E units because it had a hooded headlight). It initially operated with the EB from the original 52 consist. I also hadn't heard that any of the E6s were rebuilt internally.
The roster data I have shows that the #52 was an E6 with builder's number 1094, outshopped in October 1940 after about 2/3's of their E6 fleet had already been delivered.
The original EA with that number was wrecked and usable parts were recycled by EMD to construct a replacement E6. That's also why B&O never rostered an E8A with that number, despite the other EA trade-ins maintaining their original numbers.
B&O's surviving E6 fleet was upgraded to E8 standards in the mid 1950's and didn't remain in original condition through to retirement. The #52 was wrecked again though prior to her chance and thus wasn't rebuilt internally like her sisters nor was it sent back to La Grange to again be "rebuilt" into what basically amounted to a brand new E unit.
If more evidence is necessary to show that she wasn't ever rebuilt as an E8Am and thus was no longer an EA like her sisters, note that she was slated to be renumbered #1407 before her untimely demise. That would've put her directly ahead of her E6 sisters on B&O's roster, making her the lowest numbered E unit in the fleet.
She was not due to be renumbered with the E8Am's that received the 1433-1437 slot during B&O's big renumbering program during the late stages of steam on the system, which would've been the logical spot for her had she stayed an EA and been traded in to EMD in 1953 to be rebuilt as an E8 in a new carbody like the rest of the EA fleet was.
The information missing from that roster data is that when "B&O" EA 52 was rebuilt by EMD it was no longer a B&O locomotive because, as I indicated in my prior post, it had been transferred to The Alton. After The Alton was absorbed by GM&O, the EA became GM&O 100A. It was later rebuilt to E8 specifications and retained that number. In other words, B&O had two A units numbered 52, although not at the same time. The first was the EA that was transferred to The Alton. The second was an E6 that was acquired as a replacement for the transferred EA and that was never rebuilt.
Did some additional digging and it looks like this old roster I'm looking at that was done by Louis B. Marre isn't quite accurate for the 52.
It suggests that the EA had been traded in for the E6 with no mention of it actually having been sold off. Easy assumption to get caught in, with the E6 sharing the EA's number and the early retirement.
This picture in particular would seem to confirm the previous post that there were in fact two #52's rather than the E6 having been built using the EA as a trade-in.
http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/showPicture.aspx?id=1546438
The new E6 that carried that number however was wrecked and scrapped in 1956 without having had the internal upgrading done that her sisters did, per this source.
The October 2014 Trains has most of the route of EMC #103. You have to look back at the February 1960 edition of the map to put the story together. And there are differences between the two maps and no explanations why.
NP Eddie The latest "Trains" has the route of EMD 103. Ed Burns Happily retired NP-BN-BNSF from Minneapolis, MN
The latest "Trains" has the route of EMD 103.
Ed Burns
Happily retired NP-BN-BNSF from Minneapolis, MN
Leo_Ames Did some additional digging and it looks like this old roster I'm looking at that was done by Louis B. Marre isn't quite accurate for the 52. It suggests that the EA had been traded in for the E6 with no mention of it actually having been sold off. Easy assumption to get caught in, with the E6 sharing the EA's number and the early retirement.
On the subject of accuracy, you do mean Louis A. Marre, don't you....
But I agree that first 52 became Alton 100A.
M636COn the subject of accuracy, you do mean Louis A. Marre, don't you....
Don't confuse him with Louis B. Mayer!
The Missouri Pacific had 47 miles of trackage rights over the Cotton Belt between Illmo, MO and Dexter Jct. MO. This was commonly referred to as the joint track. This is the Cotton Belt trackage that the EMC FT #103 operated over in the Summer of 1940. Cotton Belt mileage would be between stations I 3 and I 50.
Cotton Belt MP104SSW9389 located at MP104 I am closely watching your comments BSM/ABSM/Colton Block PFE bring back memories. Am confused about the comment EMC 103 traveling 47 miles on Cotton Belt (Dupo to Texarkana territory). Oh by the way I do fondly remember the Dupo PA's off lining the Cotton Belt here at Paragould to get onto their home track.......47 miles, where exactly? Thanks Enjoy your postings
I can check, but I had the page opened to it when I typed that to get the name right. Would be pretty silly if it was my mistake, but I'll check.
I'm hoping it wasn't me that made the error. :)
Edit: Yep, it was me. Watched too many classic movies lately, perhaps...
Leo_Ames I can check, but I had the page opened to it when I typed that to get the name right. Would be pretty silly if it was my mistake, but I'll check. I'm hoping it wasn't me that made the error. :) Edit: Yep, it was me. Watched too many classic movies lately, perhaps...
Nobody would mistake Louis B Mayer for a professor of English in real life....
Specifically a typing error....
Mudchicken the Southern had both FT and FS units. An FS is an FT that doesn't use a drawbar to connect to another unit. The Southern FS B units were those with the 5th porthole ala the Santa Fe Booster units. I'm looking for my notes I took on these and will post again soon. Later in the January 1, 1959 EMD product data cards the FS units are called FTS by EMD. It's confusing so we railfans just use the term FT.
mudchicken Did Southern's twenty some odd FT-B's get retrofitted with draft gear then? There are several of those FT-B's (Virginia & Kentucky have at least one each) out there preserved and not attached to an A unit. (4300 Class)
Did Southern's twenty some odd FT-B's get retrofitted with draft gear then? There are several of those FT-B's (Virginia & Kentucky have at least one each) out there preserved and not attached to an A unit. (4300 Class)
SSW9389 Mudchicken the Southern had both FT and FS units. An FS is an FT that doesn't use a drawbar to connect to another unit. The Southern FS B units were those with the 5th porthole ala the Santa Fe Booster units. I'm looking for my notes I took on these and will post again soon. Later in the January 1, 1959 EMD product data cards the FS units are called FTS by EMD. It's confusing so we railfans just use the term FT. mudchicken Did Southern's twenty some odd FT-B's get retrofitted with draft gear then? There are several of those FT-B's (Virginia & Kentucky have at least one each) out there preserved and not attached to an A unit. (4300 Class)
While Preston Cook doesn't support this view, I believe FT stands for "Fourteen Hundred Horsepower Twin Unit" and FS stands for Fourteen Hundred Horsepower Single Unit". I'm told that the early references to Santa Fe units (all of which had couplers and many of which were delivered as A+B+B+B sets) were to FS. Sadly EMD internal documents are not consistent in later periods when the origin of the model codes was forgotten. Clearly "T" had been taken for "Twelve Hundred" as in Rock Island's TA and couldn't be used for "Thirteen Hundred" even if that was wanted. But if "F" in FT did not stand for horsepower, it would have been the first road unit not to use the horsepower for the code.
As to draft gear, I thought that the Santa Fe units had effectively rigid couplers between A and B units, but had normal draft gear at the "long" end of the B unit. If the original drawbar was rigid (as I'm told) having couplers would introduce a very small amount of slack not present with the drawbar. Most drawbar coupled freight cars have normal draft gears applied each end of the drawbar and I think FTs would have needed at least a compact draft gear at the coupled end of each unit.
The FT was originally viewed as a big E unit with a drawbar holding it together, but by the time the F2 appeared the units were completely independent vehicles.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.