Interestingly enough -- there is another railroad that kinda fits this question except that the locomotives were NOT obtained from EMD.
CASO, NYC 6039 and 6040, obtained from GMDD (and no other units with steam generators obtained from that builder). Both locomotives wound up in blue and white (as CR 7439 and 7440).
I have no idea how the NYC used these in passenger service, but would it not have involved the section of Detroit-Buffalo trains operating in Canada?
One of these (ex 680) was still operating (albeit modified and without steam generator or 'torpedo tube' tanks) as MRL 127 in September 2014.
Thanks to the "Blue Clue"... GN 679 and 680, a pair of 1954 "torpedo boat" passenger GP9s without dynamic brakes. 679 got into Big Sky Blue by 1969. The only in-service photos I've been able to find show them in Twin Cities-Twin Ports service, though I don't (yet) have an operational reason one of them had to be there. Was one of them GN's SPUD switcher?
Wizlish:
No and no. Keep your thinking hat on!!
Ed Burns
Did this railroad order the two locomotives as wreck replacements/rebuilds? And was E-port a contraction of the terminal?
I'm surprised Firelock76 hasn't commented on this.
Wiszlish and others:
I will continue the forum.
This railroad (no longer in existance) had two and only two GP-9's from EMD that were ordered with steam generators.
What were their road numbers and what division (terminal) did one of them have to be at all times? What was the name of the railroad?
Hint: Were either of them painted blue and white before 1970?
Put on your thinking caps and search the computer!!!
I'm coming up with bupkis for a good question. Somebody else propose a good one to keep things going -- I'll 'reserve the balance of my time' and come back in with something when I've thought of it.
Jersey Central had no Centipedes (or need for them!) -- what they had was the famous double-enders with A-1-A trucks.
These had the 'babyface' nose but a very different arrangement behind it!
If I remember correctly, Jersey Central had some Centapides, and one or two were used on the New York and Long Branch, Summer 1951, where they replaced a few camelback ten wheelers still in use. They did not last long in that service. The PRR had already replaced most ten wheelers with K4s. Did the CNJ use them in freight afterward? I think Alco RS?s took over on the NY&LB for the CNJ.
Eric and All:
Thanks for the information on the centapedes. I always had questions about those strange locomotives. As a side, the NP had a handful of Baldwin locomotives, but they were assigned to Lines West, so we never saw them at Northtown. Frey and Shrenk's NP locomotive book has a number of pictures of them. It turned out the NP did not like them and returned to EMD until 1964 when the U25C's appeared.
Wizlish,
You are correct and get the nod for the next question.
A couple of comments:
The articulated underframe causes problems when the locomotive is pushing rather than pulling. When pulling, the tracive forces tend to straighten out the underframe, when pushing the tractive forces try to push the underframe out of alignment. (this was from Kirkland.)
The big advantage of a hexapole motor over a quadrupole motor is that for a given frame thickness, the flux density at the air gap between the pole faces and armature can be higher. This allows for more torque to be produced for a given armature current.
- Erik
erikemWhat feature of the Centipede [made] the PRR think they would be good for pusher/helper service?
One was lots of capable traction motors, on a cast underframe. A BH50 had the same number of powered axles as an A-B-B-A set of Sharks. And these were Westinghouse hexapole motors, perhaps the best in the business at the time. Spreading HP.TE over all those axles made problems with wheelslip less of a big deal -- and in those days it was more of a big deal than GM et al. wanted to let on...
It also helped (pun not consciously intended, I swear!) that the required buff force was taken entirely through the underframe, as it would have been on a GG1, so there was no stress on kingpins or carbody structure, engine beds, etc.
Plenty of power at slow RPM from even derated 608s, and keeping the locomotives 'close to home' made maintaining their "steam era" style water, lube, and electrical systems less of a chore.
[quote]What different feature made the Centipede rather unsuitable for pusher service?/quote]
There were actually two. The big one was the misalignment of the traction-motor blower ducts when the comparatively long chassis swung farther than expected on curves. Even a tough hexapole does not like having its cooling airflow interrupted when making power! (See also the actual 'nail in the coffin' that led to the abandonment of TE-1 development on N&W and the scrapping of Jawn Henry...)
The secondary one was that with All Those Wheels also came All Those Brakeshoes. Changing them all was a major job and a major expense, especially on the derated locomotives.
As an aside: PRR had two kinds of train assistance on grades, and people may get these confused if they aren't aware of them. One was the use of additional locomotives to get more tonnage over a given grade -- these were 'helpers'. The other was the use of additional locomotives to get a train FASTER over a given grade (usually a passenger train) -- these were 'snappers'.
Now I would have thought that a Centipede, one of the arguably highest-speed diesel-locomotive designs ever built, would be a natural for snapping. Anyone know if they were used that way -- or what the problems with Centipedes in that service might have been?
Peter,
No worries about the time to get back, figure you are in a very different timezone. Too bad Baldwin never got the chance to fully equip and debug that locomotive.
Since the topic is Centipedes...
The PRR Centipedes spent their last years in pusher service, which brings up a couple of questions.
What feature of the Centipede make the PRR think they would be good for pusher/helper service?
What different feature made the Centipede rather unsuitable for pusher service?
erikem This would be Baldwin's original stab at the Centipede, with eight 750HP engines supplying a total of 6,000HP to eight traction motors. IIRC, the lcomotive was never finsihed to the original design as only two of the 750HP engines were completed. This prototype was converted to the "standard" Centipede configuation of two 1500 HP engines. - Erik
This would be Baldwin's original stab at the Centipede, with eight 750HP engines supplying a total of 6,000HP to eight traction motors. IIRC, the lcomotive was never finsihed to the original design as only two of the 750HP engines were completed. This prototype was converted to the "standard" Centipede configuation of two 1500 HP engines.
Erik,
You are right, although it was always described as a demonstrator in references I've seen until it was rebuilt as a "centipede".
I'm sorry it takes so long to get back.
But it is your turn to ask.
Peter
M636CThere was an even rarer unit, a G6 with a single motor and three rigid axles, used mainly in Lebanon of all places.
That was the one I was thinking of, with a V6 567C - I saw it in the old Kalmbach 'GM scrapbook'.
I think this has been posted in other threads, but here is Max Essl's patent on the locomotive.
The Big Diesel that Didn't was in the January 1963 issue of Trains. Kirkland had a few words to say about this in his THE DIESEL BUILDERS- Volume Three.
Interesting concept, the removable engine pods had the potential of greatly simplifying maintenance - the Trains article said that one was changed in about 20 minutes. One downside of the design was that there wasn't a good way of emulating series to parallel transition to keep the generator voltge and current requirements within reason.
erikemThis prototype was converted to the "standard" Centipede configuation of two 1500 HP engines.
and IIRC sold to Seaboard. There was a good article on this locomotive in Trains, I think from the early '60s - it is in the Complete Collection but I can't give you a reference until the IT people resolve the Mac issues.
See this page by Will Davis for some more interesting detail.
The DR12-8-750/8 was sort of the original genset locomotive with crosswise engine/generator sets that could be swapped out by overhead crane for maintenance. I would suspect more than a little trouble with the fluid and electrical connections using available late 1940s materials.
Wizlish M636C Wizlish Hmmm ... let's see. Here's one about as difficult as the RS27, but let me try making the question a bit more Times-of-Londonish: This diesel-electric locomotive has exactly 1/3 the number of traction motors as it has powered axles. What type of diesel prime mover is installed? Indian Railways GA12C, EMD 12-567C M636C I had thought those locomotives were 1B-B1, not C-C, but I defer to your knowledge. Perhaps better known by their Indian Railways class, YDM5. Here's a drawing that shows the motor arrangement, which also clearly indicates the trucks are C' (meaning three conjugated axles): That answers the question -- but I was thinking of the other one that matches the criteria given. Peter - you know that one too, I think[ can you tell 'em what it is?. In any case, you get the next question.
M636C Wizlish Hmmm ... let's see. Here's one about as difficult as the RS27, but let me try making the question a bit more Times-of-Londonish: This diesel-electric locomotive has exactly 1/3 the number of traction motors as it has powered axles. What type of diesel prime mover is installed? Indian Railways GA12C, EMD 12-567C M636C
Wizlish Hmmm ... let's see. Here's one about as difficult as the RS27, but let me try making the question a bit more Times-of-Londonish: This diesel-electric locomotive has exactly 1/3 the number of traction motors as it has powered axles. What type of diesel prime mover is installed?
Hmmm ... let's see. Here's one about as difficult as the RS27, but let me try making the question a bit more Times-of-Londonish:
This diesel-electric locomotive has exactly 1/3 the number of traction motors as it has powered axles. What type of diesel prime mover is installed?
First the question...
Along the same lines:
A locomotive that, as designed, had the same number of prime movers as traction motors. The number was bigger than 1, since only half the proposed number of prime movers were actually installed, and bigger than 2, ruling out a number of GE 45 ton units and similar small units.
Only one was built, and for extra credit, what happened to it?
To revert briefly to the Indian units:
There were two batches:
The YDM-3, GA-12, which was a 1'B' B' 1', basically a standard GA-8 with the bigger engine and idler axles to keep the axle load down.
The YDM-5, GA-12C, shown in the diagram, C' C'.
In fact, the YDM-4, Alco DL535 was the unit of choice, built in large numbers and even exported to unlikely places like Vietnam. It was a simple six axle six motor unit with a six cylinder 251D and probably cost less than a GA12C.
There was an even rarer unit, a G6 with a single motor and three rigid axles, used mainly in Lebanon of all places. I don't imagine any survive there.
M636C
M636CAnd I stand by my comment that the R101 did not have locomotive sized engines.
But the issue was not 'locomotive' sized engines, it was 'railcar' sized engines. One reference I saw (at oldengine.org) indicated about the Chorlton "railcar" engine designs "Bore and stroke sizes of 8-1/4" X 12" and 12" X 12" were offered, and the engines were built in 4,6,8,12 and 18 cylinder sizes, the smaller bore sizes giving about 50 hp per cylinder at 750rpm."
I believe it has been established that the engines in CN 9000-9001 were 12x12" V-12s.
The Tornado was said (in the same oldengine.org reference) to be a specially-lightened version of this engine family (specifically the 8.25" bore inline-8).
At least one online reference to the CN locomotives is (perhaps intentionally) a bit cagy with respect to the design of the engines -- they explicitly refer to the Beardmore railcar engines in the sentence preceding the locomotive discussion, and then again in the sentence following it, leaving the inference that the CN Beardmore V-12s were in some way similar to the engines used in the switchers and railcars..
I have seen at least one picture of the actual Beardmore engine (being lowered into the carbody of one of the units) but do not have a reference URL -- perhaps someone who knows can provide it. It might be possible to tell by comparison whether the engines were derived from the 'railcar' design or were, as M636C suggests, of more robust design and construction . (It might also be interesting to see whether any of the 18-cylinder variants were actually built.)
Wizlish, with that answer it is your turn to ask the next question.
Wizlish Paul D. North is the resident expert on Westinghouse and Beardmore, I think. Looks to me as if the Tornado airship engine was a development of the 12x12 (V-12 on 9000/9001) Chorlton 'railcar' engine, not the other way round. I am not surprised that an all-aluminum crankcase on a diesel this size 'failed to thrive'!
Paul D. North is the resident expert on Westinghouse and Beardmore, I think.
Looks to me as if the Tornado airship engine was a development of the 12x12 (V-12 on 9000/9001) Chorlton 'railcar' engine, not the other way round. I am not surprised that an all-aluminum crankcase on a diesel this size 'failed to thrive'!
"This Builder sold locomotives in both the USA and Canada and used a modified aircraft engine as its prime mover. (and yes it was a diesel!) Extra points if you can name the company who built the aircraft engines."
While I agree with Wizlish regarding the intended answer, I'd question that the huge engines in the CN pair of locomotives were "modified" airship engines but rather a development of the airship engines. The R101 was reputed to use heavier equipment than needed (largely thanks to the writings of Neville Shute (Conway) who was working on the successful R100 at the time) but I don't think they ever used locomotive size engines.
An equally valid answer would be Baldwin (without Westinghouse) and Maybach, referring to the train X locomotives whose MD655 engines were developed from the engines of the Graf Zeppelin and Hindenburg.
That is SO SNEAKY. "Aircraft" as in airship, of course.
Westinghouse (Baldwin). The engine builder was Beardmore.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.