Bill Metzger explained why the 2014 map was changed from the 1960 map in the Observation Tower Blog: http://cs.trains.com/trn/b/observation-tower/archive/2014/10/06/when-and-where-did-the-diesel-that-did-it-actually-do-it.aspx
SSW9389 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
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
According to EMD Field Service News Volume II No. 7 dated July 15, 1947 there were five types of what we now call the "FT". These five types were the FT-A, FT-B, FT-SB, FS-A, and FS-B.
The FT-A was a cab unit that was linked to a booster with a drawbar. It had a draft gear and coupler in the front.
The FT-B was the booster unit that was linked to an FT-A unit with a drawbar. It had a standard draft gear and coupler in the back.
The FT-SB was a short booster unit. It was linked to other FT units with drawbars. There was no draft gear or coupler.
The FS-A unit was a cab unit with a draft gear and coupler in the front and a Santa Fe coupler without draft gear at the back.
The FS-B unit was a booster unit with a Santa Fe coupler in the front and a draft gear and coupler in the back. The FS-B booster units as-built had the 5th porthole and hostler control.
(I've put all this EMD information on the Wikipedia FT Talk page so you can find it again.)
A four unit set of FT units is 193' long. A four unit set of FS units is 194' 4" long. There is an extra 8" length between the FS-A and the FS-B units because couplers were used instead of drawbars.
Mudchicken the Southern had all five types of FT units as described in my previous post. The Southern FS units were built with a draft gear on the front of the A units, a draft gear on the back of the B units, and Santa Fe couplers linking the back of the A unit to the front of the B units. Southern's FS units were in the 4100s and 4300s.
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)
Nine 1940 photos by Al Arnold of #103 in Worcester, Massachusetts can be found here: http://www.nerailroadphotos.com/HistoricRailroadPhotosbyAlArno/1940-Al-Arnold-Photos/i-s3t4K8F Worcester isn't on either of the FT maps.
SSW9389 Nine 1940 photos by Al Arnold of #103 in Worcester, Massachusetts can be found here: http://www.nerailroadphotos.com/HistoricRailroadPhotosbyAlArno/1940-Al-Arnold-Photos/i-s3t4K8F Worcester isn't on either of the FT maps.
In 1940, all Worcester, MA, passenger and freight trains, on all three railroads, NYNH&H, B&A/NYC,and B&M, were steam with one exception. The exception was the Worcester - Winchendon B&M doodlebug. From an eight-year-old's memory. Someone can check the Official Guide.
I was reading how EMD's test/demo units powered by their then new 645 had "eclipsed" the famous 83,000 mile/11 month tour of EMC's 4-unit FT prototype, by breaking the million mile mark in less than a year of test runs.
This got me to wondering about the exact mileage for the FT prototypes. Was it 83,000 per unit for a total of ~332,000 miles if we counted each unit as a separate locomotive? Or was it a far less impressive 83,000 miles spread across 4 units? I assume the former given the thinking of the day.
The mid-1960's EMD tour was a collective total with 11 different locomotives contributing. Assuming the FT total was a collective total of 332,000 miles, it makes the 40 series total a tad bit less impressive when one realizes just to break a million miles, each unit on average only had to contribute less than 8,000 more miles than the FT prototypes of 25 years earlier had done.
Leo_AmesThis got me to wondering about the exact mileage for the FT prototypes. Was it 83,000 per unit for a total of ~332,000 miles if we counted each unit as a separate locomotive? Or was it a far less impressive 83,000 miles spread across 4 units? I assume the former given the thinking of the day.
I believe the mileage would be counted for 'single locomotives' in that era before contracted wage and fireman issues for MU locomotives had been resolved. The issue is how much of the running was done with the demonstrator consist 'divided' into 2700hp two-unit locomotives to show appropriate scale. If this is not known it could probably at least be approximated by looking at the overall schedule and routing (which has a few uncertainties, but nothing I remember as critical) and knowledge of whether the whole or half locomotives were being operated on particular days.
Note that the likely operation of trains with the demonstrators will be different. In the prewar FT demo, the trains would have been made up and dispatched relative to steam-era operations, and this would likely have a significant impact (cf. the numbers for Niagara performance) on the number of physical route-miles per month the consist(s) could coherently serve. It might have been interesting for EMD to spend a sustained block of time on, say, running secondary or M&E trains on NYC between Harmon and Chicago to show the various effects of short-turnaround availability or functional fuel efficiency, but that was not the 'first best purpose' of the demo tour.
If the 83,000 miles are 'tour miles' and not 'divided-consist miles', the 645 testing may reflect how many miles were run by consists as if run by a single unit; I suspect much of the testing would have been with units in MU, but with several consists made up of the 11 separate units running in different areas at different times. Again only specific reference to EMD records could establish or disprove this 'for sure'; while it would be attractive marketing to tout that 'million-mile' figure, and it's relevant in some contexts to tot it up on an all-prime-movers basis for separate high-horsepower units, I'd suspect purchasing departments would be running their internal numbers to figure out what fleets of the locomotives could produce for them.
Were not the original prototype FT's from EMD; released as a single unit? I have always thought that originally, they were permanently coupled with drawbars between each unit ?
It was primarily due to issues with various iterations of 'Full crew' laws, and personnel required on 'each' unit/engine/loco; due to union contracts?
It was only after the original prototype had fulfilled its obligations to its 'new power trials, that the four units were re-equipped with functionaing couplers.
No, I read something years ago by Wally Abby that explained the original 4 unit demos was envisioned by EMD as a pair of two-unit locomotives (i.e., a drawbar connecting each A unit with their respective B unit mate and a regular coupler connection between the B units).
So it doesn't surprise me to read that these were split up during demonstration duties into AB sets.
Leo_Ames No, I read something years ago by Wally Abby that explained the original 4 unit demos was envisioned by EMD as a pair of two-unit locomotives (i.e., a drawbar connecting each A unit with their respective B unit mate and a regular coupler connection between the B units). So it doesn't surprise me to read that these were split up during demonstration duties into AB sets.
The Wally Abbey FT email originally appeared on the Santa Fe Listserve on March 5, 2001. It is preserved on Don Strack's Utah Rails page for us to read again. See: https://utahrails.net/loconotes/emc-ft.php
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.