I could never understand why EMD which had the classic road-
switcher design in the NW5 could then replace it with the "dud"
of all time ----the BL2! I must give them credit for coming to
their senses with the great GP series.
nyc#25 I could never understand why EMD which had the classic road- switcher design in the NW5 could then replace it with the "dud" of all time ----the BL2! I must give them credit for coming to their senses with the great GP series.
I tried to explain this on the previous page about two thirds of the way down.
I'll try again...
The NW5 was just the NW3 with the cab moved around, and used the hood, engine and cooling system of the NW2 which was a standard production unit.
The TR1 was a NW3 stretched to take a 16-567 in place of the 12-567. The power increase was only 350 HP so it was possible to retain the end radiator arrangement and a longer version of the existing switcher hood.
World War II comes and goes and EMC becomes EMD, an operating division of General Motors.
Presumably the insistence upon using proven components and existing designs became more serious.
The difference in power between the 12 and 16 had become 500HP and the F unit now had roof mounted radiators cooled by AC fans driven from the companion alternator. So you probably couldn't use the switcher hood and end radiator design with the higher power engine, but you didn't have an existing design that would fit in a hood unit.
So someone decided to produce an F unit, using all the standard parts, in a body that provided the visibility required of a road switcher, and the result was the BL1 and later the BL2. Apart from looking odd, this gave very poor access to the diesel engine and was not a success.
Having proved that this was not the way to go, money was made available for a "clean sheet" design which became the GP7 and was a deserved success. It used some features from the FT (the radiator layout) updated with AC drive fans to reduce maintenance and a new simpler electrical control arrangement that reduced the number of contactors in the cabinet, and the cost.
But the cost of a new design would not have been agreed to if they hadn't tried the "lower cost" option and proved that it didn't work...
Peter
Thanks,
That was an well written, concise explanation.
Ray
M636C . . . Having proved that this was not the way to go, money was made available for a "clean sheet" design which became the GP7 and was a deserved success. It used some features from the FT (the radiator layout) updated with AC drive fans to reduce maintenance and a new simpler electrical control arrangement that reduced the number of contactors in the cabinet, and the cost. But the cost of a new design would not have been agreed to if they hadn't tried the "lower cost" option and proved that it didn't work... Peter
. . . Having proved that this was not the way to go, money was made available for a "clean sheet" design which became the GP7 and was a deserved success. It used some features from the FT (the radiator layout) updated with AC drive fans to reduce maintenance and a new simpler electrical control arrangement that reduced the number of contactors in the cabinet, and the cost.
Excellent report, Peter. I wonder about your last statement, given the evident success of Alco's RS models, and post-war road switchers from Baldwin, Fairbanks-Morse, and even Lima-Hamilton. You'd think EMD would have just skipped the intermediate 'BL' step. So it's interesting that you say EMD's somewhat tardy entry was because of development cost. Some accounts that I've read make it seem as though the GP7 was a complete novelty invented by EMD's Dick Dilworth, e.g. here:
http://utahrails.net/loconotes/dilworth-gp.php
Obviously Dilworth had plenty of precedents to model his 'ugly duckling' on, even if he was faced with the problem of fitting it into the existing EMD production lines. And maybe that's the explanation. It's hard to turn a large, successful manufacturing operation in a new direction.
Can you point me to other references that offer the informed level of historical detail in your post above?
/Mr Lynn
EMD's answer to fitting the GP7 onto an existing production line was found in Cleveland, Ohio. The then new EMD Cleveland production facility opened in late 1948 and was used to build switchers and GP7s exclusively. In that way LaGrange could concentrate on the Es and Fs. The EMD Cleveland Plant was closed in early 1954.
Ed in Kentucky
MrLynn M636C . . . Having proved that this was not the way to go, money was made available for a "clean sheet" design which became the GP7 and was a deserved success. It used some features from the FT (the radiator layout) updated with AC drive fans to reduce maintenance and a new simpler electrical control arrangement that reduced the number of contactors in the cabinet, and the cost. But the cost of a new design would not have been agreed to if they hadn't tried the "lower cost" option and proved that it didn't work... Peter Excellent report, Peter. I wonder about your last statement, given the evident success of Alco's RS models, and post-war road switchers from Baldwin, Fairbanks-Morse, and even Lima-Hamilton. You'd think EMD would have just skipped the intermediate 'BL' step. So it's interesting that you say EMD's somewhat tardy entry was because of development cost. Some accounts that I've read make it seem as though the GP7 was a complete novelty invented by EMD's Dick Dilworth, e.g. here: http://utahrails.net/loconotes/dilworth-gp.php Obviously Dilworth had plenty of precedents to model his 'ugly duckling' on, even if he was faced with the problem of fitting it into the existing EMD production lines. And maybe that's the explanation. It's hard to turn a large, successful manufacturing operation in a new direction. Can you point me to other references that offer the informed level of historical detail in your post above? /Mr Lynn
Thanks SSW9389; doesn't look like Extra 2200 South is being published any more, nor are issues older than no. 91 available for sale:
http://www.extra2200south.com
.
SSW9389 EMD's answer to fitting the GP7 onto an existing production line was found in Cleveland, Ohio. The then new EMD Cleveland production facility opened in late 1948 and was used to build switchers and GP7s exclusively. In that way LaGrange could concentrate on the Es and Fs. The EMD Cleveland Plant was closed in early 1954. Ed in Kentucky
Ed,
Thanks, I'd forgotten about Cleveland....
At that time, La Grange could sell any locomotive it built and more and they weren't keen on introducing a substantially different model to the production line.
Preston Cook's article in X2200 South on the BL series is interestingly worded, since what was learned was how not to build a type of locomotive. Even as complex a body as the BL2 could have been production engineered to be built economically in larger numbers, but I think the difficulty of maintenance compared to a normal hood unit was what convinced them to build the GP.
I was fortunate to get copies of correspondence between the EMD sales group and the Australian licencee Clyde Engineering in 1951, when General Electric won an order from the Queensland Railways for a set of ten hood units of about 1200 HP. These GE units were basically scaled down six motor "U boats" some seven years before even the export "Universal" series got under way. Only three more were ever built, and the Queensland Railways laboratories spoke harshly about being given untested prototypes that left them wth the development costs.
But in 1951, Clyde only saw that they'd lost a customer because they had nothing to offer in that category.
About half the letter was devoted to saying that you couldn't make money if you tailored any design to a customer's wishes and basically Electro-Motive knew what was best for everybody, which was a standard locomotive.
The rest of the letter outlined what became the export "Model G", which was designed to be a single hood unit offered with either an 8-567 or a 12-567 with all other components standard. Canadian National had some G8s in Newfoundland on narrow gauge, and a few on standard gauge. New Zealand bought 145 G12s.
This was a scaled down GP-7. Early sketches showed a GP 7 style body, but production units had flat sides and ends and angled cab roofs.
But having seen the "official line" from La Grange only a couple of years after the GP was introduced, it is easy to see why modifying a standard unit was seen as the way ahead when the BL2 arrived. Perhaps the failure of the BL2 influenced the avoidance of modifications.
Extra 2200 South would be a good source, but I don't know where you'd find them. I think I have every copy. I met the publisher, Don Dover, forty years ago, and he was retired then. A lot of new information has appeared since then, of course.
Doug Cummings took over X2200 South, but he hasn't been able to keep it going and there is less interest in printed magazines these days. Sadly, even "Trains" doesn't give much technical detail either.
The Withers magazines, Diesel Era, do much the same job today, but I don't think they have the technical insight of the X2200 team although they do try. I was a little concerned to see references to a "central air intake" on a GP9 when referring to the forward radiator grille. They are very good on production and history.
In my previous post, I mentally wrongly combined two separate items of correspondence between EMD and Clyde, one referring to the Queensland GEs and one outlining the "Model G" locomotive.
I attach below the "Model G" letter, which outlines the design considerations for an export road switcher. One imagines the correspondence on the GP7 might have been similar.
ELECTRO-MOTIVE DIVISION
GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION
Thanks for the clarification, Peter. I looked up the G models in Marre's Diesel Locomotives: the First 50 Years, and saw that they came in 1954 on, rather later than 1951, so I was puzzled. EMD did go with the AIA trucks, and as Mr McClean suggested, Marre reports that "The standard gauge units later had their idler axles removed."
The letter from McClean obviously represents the initial conception of the locomotive, partly in response to the perceived threat from GE. In fact even the GE locomotives were not delivered to Queensland until November 1951.
Three years is not a long time to design and develop an entirely new locomotive, and I think New Zealand were still buying them in the early 1960s, and a few are still in service in NZ with chopped noses, engines rebuilt to 645 specifications, and a companion alternator and AC driven cooling fans, suggesting that the lower cost mechanical drive fan might not have been a success.
The trucks did come in both two and three axle versions, and New Zealand kept their three axle trucks even through the rebuild in the 1980s.
The three axle truck had a ten feet wheelbase, rather than the nine suggested, and normal axle guides and coil springs were used rather than leaf springs.
By 1954 the 567B had been replaced by the 567C, and the rating of the twelve cylinder engine was 1125 HP if fitted with the D15 generator, or 1310 HP with the larger D22 generator. Only two G12 units were built with the D15, both for Hong Kong but the remainder had the higher rating. All the G8s had the smaller generator and were rated at 875 HP.
I think Louis used a photo of a CN standard gauge unit with the centre axle removed from the three axle trucks in the DSG, and possibly in "50 years" as well.
Ah yes, the letter is from 1951. But wait a minute. How come they were working on a new design, when EMD already had the GP7 in production, since 1949? Was it initially just for narrow-gauge lines?
The G8 and G12 were purpose designed for export to areas with restricted clearances and rail loading. Many of these were narrow gauge, but one of the first customers for the G8 was the Victorian Railways, Australia with a 5' 3" gauge, who were interested in light axle loads, at least compared to US domestic units.
The G12 was only 12 feet high, 8'11" wide and 43 feet long over body.
The GP7 was 14'6" high, 10'3" wide and 52 feet over the body.
The G12 weighed about 75 tons and the GP7 weighed about 120 tons.
I do miss the "yard goats" running around switching trains. They seemed to fit nicely into the yards where Dad worked which is not large like some others. The road engines never did any switching in those days, now they do, because that's all they have to do it. Haven't seen a "goat" in years.
Well, Amtrak's still got some end-cab SW-somethings. You see them in the yard at Union Station in Washington, DC, and I think at New Haven, too.
My observations tend to show that GP38's or various de-rated B-B road switchers are usually assigned to yard work. In the Chicago area, it seems that IHB is the only road that still has a sizable fleet of end-cab switchers in regular service.
I've been researching NW3s and NW5s recently. There's some interesting unknown history to check out. I'll start with a new post on the NW3.
CSSHEGEWISCHMy observations tend to show that GP38's or various de-rated B-B road switchers are usually assigned to yard work.
It's interesting that it's kinda gone full-circle back to the steam era. Back c. 1895, railroads often didn't buy custom-built switchers, they just took old small-drivered 2-8-0s or 2-6-0s, removed the pilot wheels, and made it an 0-8-0 or 0-6-0 "switcher".
CSSHEGEWISCHMy observations tend to show that GP38's or various de-rated B-B road switchers are usually assigned to yard work. In the Chicago area, it seems that IHB is the only road that still has a sizable fleet of end-cab switchers in regular service.
I wish we had all our 4 axles back. Now we have a mix of 4 and 6. They think a 6 can replace two 4s. It's so wonderful running LHF half the trip.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.
MrLynnI also wonder at the persistence of the Norfolk & Western, and the Southern, at keeping the 'short hoods' of their road switchers high, and running 'long hood forward',
Second, this myth that the N&W awalys ran long hood forward needs to be put to rest! Didn't happen folks!
BigJimFirst off, if you have ever tried to wiggle down into the bowels of a short-short hood unit in order to use the toilet, or any other reason for that matter, you would truly appreciate the high short hoods of the N&W and Southern!!!!!!
I only ever saw one of the engines that had the little Keebler Elves bathroom door. Seems like every other short hood engine they put steps in and a regular door.
Old Southern engineer once told me "if they sent us out short hood first, we thought they were trying to kill us!". The lines they ran on had a lot of little country road hump crossings, and a lot of grade xing accidents.
BigJim Second, this myth that the N&W awalys ran long hood forward needs to be put to rest! Didn't happen folks!
Absolutely correct. Often saw N&W run shor hood forward. Especially on the Virginia Creeper with two back to back. Needed the vision on many curves especially those15+ degrees.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.