It is former FRA geometry car T-10 specificaly build for FRA.
12 of CDOT cars are still stored in NH, and will probably never run again, one is scrapped, the 10 MN cars left Harmon and are scattered to be scrapped, one car is in Museum at Williamantic Ct.
There was an SPV in San Francisco, at the Caltrain (old SP) station, painted blue on stainless, in June 2013. I believe it has gone from there since.
Blue suggests Metro North as its origin.
Somewhere I read that it was an ill advised purchase by Caltrain, but I can't recall from whom...
I have photo to prove it...
M636C
Most of them were converted into coaches for Shore Line East. The rest are FRA track inspection cars.
The SPVs have been sitting in the Croton-Harmon Shops on Metro-North for 30 years at last count. Could have been a victim of union monkeywrenching.
Wizlish My understanding of the 'fatal' issues with the Amerika-Loks (which is entirely based on third-party sources) was that the transmission problems were associated primarily with switching and 'warranty issues'. To make a reverse move with a pair of KMs involved waiting for all four mechanical transmissions to shift and lock, which was apparently a typically Teutonic slow and certain sort of mechanical operation. This of course with the locomotive strictly stopped and the independent applied, to prevent reverse torque or shock on the drivetrain components (same reason why you don't shift a car's automatic transmission to reverse while still rolling forward!)
My understanding of the 'fatal' issues with the Amerika-Loks (which is entirely based on third-party sources) was that the transmission problems were associated primarily with switching and 'warranty issues'. To make a reverse move with a pair of KMs involved waiting for all four mechanical transmissions to shift and lock, which was apparently a typically Teutonic slow and certain sort of mechanical operation. This of course with the locomotive strictly stopped and the independent applied, to prevent reverse torque or shock on the drivetrain components (same reason why you don't shift a car's automatic transmission to reverse while still rolling forward!)
By the early 1970s, Voith had addressed this problem.
The L3R3 and L4R4 transmissions were actually designed for reversal under full power. This worked really well for the transmission but as you can imagine it was pretty hard on the locomotives fitted with the transmission.
There were fifty small standard gauge switchers built with the L4R4 and a 700 HP Cat engine. These became surplus owing to changing operational conditions, and these were bought up by Queensland sugar cane railways, which operate quite large trains but without any form of continuous brakes. The locomotives were cut down and converted to 2 foot gauge (one advantage of hydraulic drive over electric) and have continued to work with the original transmission but newer diesel engines driving them.
In 2002 I was driving south from Cairns, and we ended up following a small container train headed up by a 3000 HP GE. We encountered a cane train hauled by a tiny 0-6-0 of about 400HP and we realised that it had a heavier load than the GE on the main line.
trackrat888http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budd_SPV-2000
Notably lacking in any substantive detail about what actually made them so bad.
They were designed with a very different level of sophistication from the RDCs (probably having been (over)designed for a nominal 120 mph speed). Many, many of the problems stemmed from the use of a little APU for all the 'hotel' functions (nominally with the intent of keeping the power of the two 8-71 engines available for propulsion). It was my understanding that, on the more powerful SPV, all four axles were supposed to be gear-driven; this put the vehicle in a different and far more expensive class as far as operating-union agreements ... so the outside axles were not driven in service. This left FAR too much power having to go through the two inner axles, and they would slip easily, causing the engines to cycle rapidly in power as first one, then the other would overspeed. The 6-110 arrangement was like 'works in a drawer' to service; the 8V-71 scarcely that!
I suspect there are people on here with a long and detailed laundry list of the problems, and I will happily listen to them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budd_SPV-2000
Metro North used a self propelled car called a SPV that turned out to be a epic falure
https://www.google.com/search?q=SPV+railroad+car&safe=strict&es_sm=93&biw=1600&bih=795&tbm=isch&imgil=xGsVXLDXONdYNM%253A%253BLhgrfhTLpJu0NM%253Bhttp%25253A%25252F%25252Fen.wikipedia.org%25252Fwiki%25252FBudd_SPV-2000&source=iu&pf=m&fir=xGsVXLDXONdYNM%253A%252CLhgrfhTLpJu0NM%252C_&usg=__hR3H6VPvVAjeWsqOZZIyn31bOu8%3D&ved=0CEAQyjc&ei=qYcpVen8FYXIsASqloDYCw#imgrc=xGsVXLDXONdYNM%253A%3BLhgrfhTLpJu0NM%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fupload.wikimedia.org%252Fwikipedia%252Fcommons%252Fthumb%252Fb%252Fb7%252FDOT_inspection_car_(9194230166).jpg%252F300px-DOT_inspection_car_(9194230166).jpg%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fen.wikipedia.org%252Fwiki%252FBudd_SPV-2000%3B300%3B192
ACYACY wrote the following post an hour ago: Warning: The Sherman/diesel discussion piqued my curiosity. At least 5 major power systems were used in various Sherman tanks, and several variations were also tested. These are the main types. Unfortunately, I can't say how many of each was produced, but a total of 49,234 Shermans were produced in 10 plants, including all three major locomotive builders, plus PC&F, Pressed Steel Car, and P-S. Lima Loco produced the first one in January, 1942 for our friends in England. It now resides in a museum over there.
Tank Model
M4 production:
Pressed Steel 1,000; Baldwin 1,233; ALCO 2,150; Pullman 689; Detroit Arsenal 1676; Total 6,748
M4A1 production:
Lima 1,655; Pressed Steel 3,700; Pacific Car & Foundry 926; Total 6,281
M4A2 production:
Fisher/Grand Blanc 4,614; Pullman 2,737; ALCO 150; Baldwin 12; Federal Welder 540; Total 8053 -some used by USMC, most Lend Lease to Russia
M4A3 production:
Ford 1,690 early type; Grand Blanc 3,070 improved type (Most advanced 75mm gun type - vision coupla, loaders hatch, 47 degree hull front, "wet storage" for ammunation)
M4A4 production
Detroit Arsenal 7,499
M4A5 US designation for Canadian Ram - Both the Sherman and the Ram were developed from the US M3 medium tank series.
Montreal Locomotive Works Ram I (2 pdr gun) 50; Ram II (6 pdr gun) 1,094.
M4A6 production
Detroit Arsenal 75 - cancelled due to problems with engine
Grizzly Canadian built M4A1
Montreal Locomotive Works 188: cancelled because US factoriesa were able to produce all tanks needed.
Shermans first produced with 75mm gun. Production of Shermans with 76mm gun started in Feb 1944. Suffix "(76 mm)" added to Model number indicated 76 mm gun tanks. The 76 had better armor penetration than the 75, but the 75 was a better gun for firing high explosive shells. Some of the troops preferred the 75 to the 76 because most of the time in western Europe, targets were actially "soft", not armor.
The Sherman is often maligned in popular literature about tanks, but due to its balance of fire power, armor, speed, cross country abilities, upgradeability, ergonomics, reliability, and ease of maintence/repair was probably the best overall tank of the war.
I tried to sell my two cents worth, but no one would give me a plug nickel for it.
I don't have a leg to stand on.
Warning:
The Sherman/diesel discussion piqued my curiosity. At least 5 major power systems were used in various Sherman tanks, and several variations were also tested. These are the main types. Unfortunately, I can't say how many of each was produced, but a total of 49,234 Shermans were produced in 10 plants, including all three major locomotive builders, plus PC&F, Pressed Steel Car, and P-S. Lima Loco produced the first one in January, 1942 for our friends in England. It now resides in a museum over there.
M4 and M4A1 used the Continental R-975 CI 9-cylinder radial gasoline engine. 350HP at 2400 RPM.
M4A2 used two GM 6046 (12 cylinders) 2-cycle in-line diesels. 375 HP at 2100 RPM.
M4A3 used the Ford GAA V-8 (60 degree vee) 8 cyl. 4 cycle gasoline engine. 450 HP at 2600 RPM. Preferred by the U.S. Army.
M4A4 used five Chrysler A-57 6-cyl. 4-cycle gasoline engines in a multibank arrangement that required a lengthened hull. 370 HP at 2850 RPM.
M4A6 used the Ordnance RD-1820 Caterpillar 9 cyl., 4-cycle radial diesel. 450HP at 2000 RPM.
(info from M4 Sherman by George Forty, Blandford Press, 1987.)
Tom
M636COf course, it is the through life costs that count. Unfamiliarity of maintainers with the hydraulic transmissions compared to diesel electrics were a problem for the USA Krauss Maffei units. The locomotives built so far are operating in Germany, so the principle works...
Then the nail in the coffin: if I remember correctly, the manufacturer expected the oil in the transmissions to be changed every 30 days. All the several hundred gallons of it, and if the price of the German oil was even remotely comparable to the Pentosin required in BMW systems, that would be big money... all this for something that in EMDs was handled with easily supplied and relatively leakproof electrons.
I suspect the KMs were also subject to the issues reported for the Alco DH643 "Alco-Haulics" -- lots of fun having to keep all the wheeltread profiles and diameters equal with all the axles in a truck geared together. I would also suspect that American train weights and other factors would not be kind to the gears, particularly if there were high resistance or rotational inertia in the drivetrain during 'backdriving'. If I remember correctly the successful classes of diesel-hydraulic in Germany and Britain were comparatively lightweight locomotives.
Is there any record of the types of failure experienced on 'Train X' with the truck-mounted engine and Mekydro transmission?
Wizlish It is so much simpler to use hydrokinetics, as in 'fluid drive' or torque converters, at locomotive scale. If you can make geared transmissions and shaft drive workable. Krauss-Maffei demonstrated in the early '60s that it was fully possible to build large locomotives that way. But they also demonstrated that the costs associated with doing it the 'German' way were excessively high compared to contemporary diesel-electric practice...
It is so much simpler to use hydrokinetics, as in 'fluid drive' or torque converters, at locomotive scale. If you can make geared transmissions and shaft drive workable. Krauss-Maffei demonstrated in the early '60s that it was fully possible to build large locomotives that way. But they also demonstrated that the costs associated with doing it the 'German' way were excessively high compared to contemporary diesel-electric practice...
I believe most of the problems with the 1960s Krauss-Maffei units were due to the high speed engines, later known as the MTU 538 series. The other problem was that due to limitations of the transmission, two engines and two transmissions were required.
More recently, Voith have introduced a new transmission, the LS640reU2 which can transmit the power from a single engine developing 5500 HP, the engines currently used being Belgian ABC model DZC running at 1000 rpm.
The transmission has independent drive to each truck allowing separate wheelslip control of each truck.
While this must cost less than a twin engine locomotive, and could presumably be driven by either a GE GEVO or the new EMD engine, it might also be cost competitive against an AC drive.
Of course, it is the through life costs that count. Unfamiliarity of maintainers with the hydraulic transmissions compared to diesel electrics were a problem for the USA Krauss Maffei units.
The locomotives built so far are operating in Germany, so the principle works...
Hydrostatic uses positive displacement of high-pressure oil. It isn't really practical for locomotives over the general size of plant switchers, for the simple reason that an substantial run-in or slack action communicated back to the locomotive produces enormous overpressure in the hydraulic system, which would require enormous amounts of relief valve area to accommodate.
I believe you are thinking of a dentist's handpiece, not a Dremel (which uses a small high-speed electric motor). Perhaps a better pneumatic example would be the air starter/neighborhood Doomsday siren on some Alcos. I had thought that the 'air transmission' methods, for example those used on some of the early large Diesel locomotive experiments in Europe, used the compressed air in piston motors, not turbines or vane motors or the kinds of motor design best suited to hydrostatics used at high speed/high power.
Hydrostatic uses some kind of high pressure pumping system as the prime mover? I suppose there were air pressure engines out there at one time that kinda ran like a giant Dremal moter tool.
110 series introduced 1945 (I don't know the month). 71 series dates from 1937. Note that the introduction of thr 8V-71 and 12V-71 made much of the reason for thr 6-110 disappear even though there was a turbo option for it from 1958.
Here is some descriptive text from an article on the engine:
"A new compact, light weight Diesel engine, now being manufactured by Detroit Diesel Engine Division of General Motors, promises the economy and efficiency of Diesel power in scores of applications where such power could not be used before because of size and weight. The new engine, designated the "110" because of its 110 cubic inch displacement per cylinder, is a 6-cylinder, 2-cycle unit rated at 275 horsepower. The engine has undergone extensive testing in U. S. Coast Guard vessels.
"The new 110 engine embodies the same advanced principles of high-speed, two-cycle design as the 71 series, of which more than 45,000,000 horsepower have been produced by Detroit Diesel since 1937. The horsepower rating of 275 at 1800 r.p.m. is attained with a b.m.e.p. of 92 pounds per square inch. Bore is 5 inches and stroke, 5.6 inches. Features include blower scavenging with a new and highly efficient gear-driven centrifugal blower furnishing considerably more air for the cylinders than is needed for combustion. GM unit injectors (one for each cylinder) pump, meter and atomize the fuel, and are easily removed for inspection or exchange. Cylinder block and head are one-piece castings, both being symmetrical about a vertical plane between the No. 3 and 4 cylinders. This symmetry allows the cylinder head and block to be reversed, giving a choice of rotational directions and making possible a variety of accessory locations to suit installation requirements.
"The engine is of rugged heavy-duty construction throughout. All wearing parts such as cylinder liners, bearings, valve guides and inserts are precision parts and are readily replaceable, which adds to engine life and ease of repair. Large main bearing and crankpin journals assure long bearing life."
rcdrye wrote the following post 8 hours ago: My error in attributing the drive train to the Sherman tank. The transmission used on the RDC was based on the Allison transmission developed for the (gas-engined) M46 Patton tank. The 6-110 engine was an off-the shelf Detroit Diesel used in industrial, marine and highway applications. Spicer supplied a bolt-on gear set for the inboard axles for attaching the drive shafts.
My error in attributing the drive train to the Sherman tank. The transmission used on the RDC was based on the Allison transmission developed for the (gas-engined) M46 Patton tank. The 6-110 engine was an off-the shelf Detroit Diesel used in industrial, marine and highway applications. Spicer supplied a bolt-on gear set for the inboard axles for attaching the drive shafts.
Actually in general the German tanks were not less likely to to "brew-up" than the Shermans. The problem was on-board stored ammunition. This was also a problem with the diesel powered Russian tanks. . Once Sermans with "wet-storage" replaced the older Shermans the numbers of really distructive fires dropped. A gasoline fire could be extinguished with on-board fire suppression equipment and fire extinguishers. All was lost if the ammunition caught fire.
"Firelock76 wrote the following post 2 hours ago: Sherman tanks got the name "Ronson Lighters" from the old Ronson ad catch phrase: "Lights first time, every time!" And no, German tanks weren't diesel powered, at least most of them weren't. The Panzer Mark 4, the Panther, and the Tiger were all gasolene powered, hence the German desire (bordering on desperation) to capture American fuel dumps during the Battle of the Bulge. The Russian T-34, on the other hand, WAS diesel powered."
Sherman tanks got the name "Ronson Lighters" from the old Ronson ad catch phrase:
"Lights first time, every time!"
And no, German tanks weren't diesel powered, at least most of them weren't. The Panzer Mark 4, the Panther, and the Tiger were all gasolene powered, hence the German desire (bordering on desperation) to capture American fuel dumps during the Battle of the Bulge.
The Russian T-34, on the other hand, WAS diesel powered."
The Russian T-34, on the other hand, WAS diesel powered.
BaltACD M636C trackrat888 And that is why that many are left or were left in commuter yards for years as they broke down for lack of parts. The story I keep getting is that they used old Sherman tank engines. Checking on Wikipedia, no Sherman tank used the Detroit 6-110. The M4A2, which did use Detroit engines had a pair of 6/71 engines coupled together side by side. Interestingly, these were mainly used by the US Marines and virtually all operational US Army Shermans had gasoline engines, many an air cooled Continental radial engine. I recall hearing that the gasoline was a distinct disadvantage in battle conditions due to the risk of fire, and that German tanks were all diesel. M636C Weren't the Sherman's derisevly termed 'Ronson's' by their crews, in honor of the Ronson cigarette lighter.
M636C trackrat888 And that is why that many are left or were left in commuter yards for years as they broke down for lack of parts. The story I keep getting is that they used old Sherman tank engines. Checking on Wikipedia, no Sherman tank used the Detroit 6-110. The M4A2, which did use Detroit engines had a pair of 6/71 engines coupled together side by side. Interestingly, these were mainly used by the US Marines and virtually all operational US Army Shermans had gasoline engines, many an air cooled Continental radial engine. I recall hearing that the gasoline was a distinct disadvantage in battle conditions due to the risk of fire, and that German tanks were all diesel. M636C
trackrat888 And that is why that many are left or were left in commuter yards for years as they broke down for lack of parts. The story I keep getting is that they used old Sherman tank engines.
And that is why that many are left or were left in commuter yards for years as they broke down for lack of parts. The story I keep getting is that they used old Sherman tank engines.
Weren't the Sherman's derisevly termed 'Ronson's' by their crews, in honor of the Ronson cigarette lighter.
We're O.T here but wasn't the "Ronson" a flame thrower equipeed Sherman?
"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
jrbernier I think we need to talk about what is a Hydraulic drive. The RDC's have a torque converter transmission system. True hydraulic motors would be axle mounted(like traction motors) and have a pump driving hydraulic fluid to this motors. The diesel would be powering the fluid pump. Most diesel hydraulics I am aware of have a fluid/hydraulic transmission between the diesel power plant and the shaft driven wheels. I suspect there are some true hydraulics in Europe that actually have hydraulic motors. Jim
I think we need to talk about what is a Hydraulic drive. The RDC's have a torque converter transmission system. True hydraulic motors would be axle mounted(like traction motors) and have a pump driving hydraulic fluid to this motors. The diesel would be powering the fluid pump. Most diesel hydraulics I am aware of have a fluid/hydraulic transmission between the diesel power plant and the shaft driven wheels. I suspect there are some true hydraulics in Europe that actually have hydraulic motors.
Jim
I know of only one standard gauge locomotive with hydraulic motor drive, and these units are generally known as diesel hydrostatic to distinguish them from the much more common torque converter "diesel hydraulic" units.
The unit I know about, while standard gauge, was tiny, having a 52 HP Fordson tractor four cylinder diesel engine driving a pump and two hydraulic motors, one on each axle. This unit was built in Melbourne Australia by the government Victorian Railways at their Newport Workshops in 1960.
It was known as locomotive V56 and was used to push electric multiple unit trains through a mechanical car washer. A special feature was the ability to run continuously at extremely low speed. This locomotive was withdrawn in the late 1990s.
There was one other locomotive on the two-foot gauge sugar railway system in Mackay, in Queensland. This was built by Clyde Engineering and used the power plant referred to here, the Detroit 6-110. This was a version of a standard Clyde DHI-110, but had a hydraulic pump and motor in place of the usual Allison torque converter transmission. I went into the cab of this unit in 1972 and was amazed to see a set of manometer tubes for measuring the hydraulic pressure at various points through the transmission system. I believe the locomotive was returned to standard with an Allison torque converter some time later.
I believe that large track maintenance machines (including those built in the USA) usually have hydrostatic propulsion which allows the very slow speed of advance required by tampers and similar machines. Since tamping heads use hydrostatic drive, using a hydraulic motor for proulsion simplifies the design.
jrbernier I think we need to talk about what is a Hydraulic drive. The RDC's have a torque converter transmission system.
I think we need to talk about what is a Hydraulic drive. The RDC's have a torque converter transmission system.
The Idea was to run a shuttle train for additional parking for Syracuse Basketball Games and the Carolsel Mall. Parking is non existant near the Stadium.
The State of New York owned the last 20 miles of the Laccawanna RR and the SUSYQ in lue of rent agreed to run commuter/Excusion Trains on the right of way. The Service was known as ONTRACK. When CSX/NS took control of SUSYQ when CEO Walter Rich died passenger service ended.
Track rat do you know when sosq need that service and why?
And the Budd RDC's only had the inboard axle on each truck powered(IIRC).
Modeling BNSF and Milwaukee Road in SW Wisconsin
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.