Juniathawhy not re-build one of the quite clean and good looking (and proven!) L&N Berkshires, the M-1?
As with the T1 Trust, the expense in making one of those sharp styled tenders can be largely avoided -- there is a complete one stored in New Haven, Kentucky...
All the contempory diesel type housing and the red paint cannot conceal that it continued with zero amending the one major draw-back of the classic steam locomotives: the very limited starting tractive effort: It has again but 8 drive wheels - just as any late Berkshire had - and with it's claimed 3000 ihp was to have even less horse power than the better of the classic engine had. Just to fill the analogy: it even has 6 idler wheels again and a 2x6 wheel tender.
If that's so, and this is now said to be competitive - then why not re-build one of the quite clean and good looking (and proven!) L&N Berkshires, the M-1? They were being scapped way to early anyhow: just look at their tenders, there it's clearly noted to which date they were supposed to run!
= J =
Trains mag had this on the front cover, the Ace 3000 steam locomotive. A modern day steam locomotive.
http://www.trainweb.org/tusp/ult.html
Crawling around my layout are a GP3 and a SD3 (GP7 and SD7 kitbashed with F3 tall shroud fans and griils instead of fans for dynamic braking)and a low nosed FM H-36-66 (bashed H-24-66). I've though about H-30-44 and H-30-66's as well.
oltmanndAnother loco proposed, not built. GE C60-8E https://photos.app.goo.gl/1RMmCfq1PG11ef2i9
Don, that predates the 'massively rebuilt E44' that was GE's swan song as a NEC electric freight engine, doesn't it -- it looks like, and I'd expect it is, an adaptation of the E60CP/H to freight service with only one cab and a hood for better 'rear vision' instead of a full-width carbody.
With the shorter three-axle trucks installed from the beginning, not only after 'painful experience'...
Out of curiosity: was this spec'd as an 80mph engine as the passenger versions came to be? Would have been highly useful on those midnight M&E trains north of Philadelphia...
Another loco proposed, not built. GE C60-8E
https://photos.app.goo.gl/1RMmCfq1PG11ef2i9
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
Being in-line engines, the FM's were an easy fit in the engine room. My recollection from a Dec 1971 tour of a Guppy boat was there wasn't a lot of space between the engines.
One other issue with any engine used for Naval propulsion is that the engines were usually running at the equivalent of run 4 or run 5.
CSSHEGEWISCHAfter all, FM engines did have a proven history in USN submarines.
Remember that the 184A pancakes ran just fine. It was the combination of jacking up the specific horsepower and putting the generator at the bottom that caused most of the grief.
After all, FM engines did have a proven history in USN submarines.
bogie_engineer wonder if this had anything to do with the "pancake engine" used on some of the ca 1950 USN submarines. An example was the Albacore.
Albacore and the Tang class. They were such failures, the USN cut the boats open , removed the GM engines and replaced them with FM units which required that the boats be lengthened. Since then, all US nuclear boats except the latest class have used FM engines as emergency "get you home" power if there was a problem with the reactor
Overmod creepycrank The rocking pin insert bearing my have been introduced at the same time as 16:1 compression ratio. That was my understanding, on the 645FB. If I understand the concept correctly, the piston pin doesn't actually 'rock', it is ground with multiple centers so it sweeps oil across the little-end bearing shell each time the rod articulates. I think it's the antithesis of a floating wristpin in that it's physically bolted to its connecting rod ... in fact on at least some 710s those are 5/16" bolts. Thats correct. There is no oil hole drilled through the connecting rod, the oil is squirt up to the piston by the "pee" pipe for cooling of the piston as well as for lubrication. The pin looks like it is divided into 3 parts with the parts off set slightly from each other a gap opens up as the rod "rocks" back and forth so oil can get in. I think this design was used on a British truck engine back in the 50's. It has a greater load carrying capacity than the original sleeve design. The Navy EDG engines got buy on a non-silver plated bearing because of the possible corrosion problem. Some bearings in the turbo are silver plated but it doesn't. Newport News Shipyard put "locomotive" type oil in the engines for the Nimitz class carriers because it is also a Mil spec. oil
creepycrank The rocking pin insert bearing my have been introduced at the same time as 16:1 compression ratio.
That was my understanding, on the 645FB.
If I understand the concept correctly, the piston pin doesn't actually 'rock', it is ground with multiple centers so it sweeps oil across the little-end bearing shell each time the rod articulates. I think it's the antithesis of a floating wristpin in that it's physically bolted to its connecting rod ... in fact on at least some 710s those are 5/16" bolts.
creepycrankThe rocking pin insert bearing my have been introduced at the same time as 16:1 compression ratio.
creepycrank The problem of Navy MIL spec. oil would come up again with the high shock diesel generators. The problem was the possible use of a zinc base additive that would corrode the silver plated piston insert bearings in the piston. EMD developed a bearing that had no silver that was margenal with tirbo engines but just fine for blower engines and about $100 cheaper. Later on EMD convinced the navy to switch to the EB power assemblies with the trick rocking pin insert bering without going through the enire shock test.
The problem of Navy MIL spec. oil would come up again with the high shock diesel generators. The problem was the possible use of a zinc base additive that would corrode the silver plated piston insert bearings in the piston. EMD developed a bearing that had no silver that was margenal with tirbo engines but just fine for blower engines and about $100 cheaper. Later on EMD convinced the navy to switch to the EB power assemblies with the trick rocking pin insert bering without going through the enire shock test.
1. 645E 14.5:1 CR, 2150 hp @ 900 rpm
2. 645EB 14.5:1CR, 2250 hp @ 900 rpm
3. 645EC 16:1 CR, 2250 hp @ 900 rpm
4. 645F 16:1 CR, 2500 hp @ 900 rpm
The rocking pin insert bearing my have been introduced at the same time as 16:1 comression ratio.
The principal issue with the 338s as I understood it was not so much ZDDP as it was the different drive arrangement compared with the 184/184A. The earlier pancake used a right-angle drive at the bottom, which was not a leak problem. The 338 had a generator there, which was a big-time bad idea, additives or not.
Tell them more about the EB assemblies.
bogie_engineer Erik_Mag I wonder if this had anything to do with the "pancake engine" used on some of the ca 1950 USN submarines. An example was the Albacore. What he told me was it was to be an airplane engine given Kettering's interest in aviation but I don't remember any other details.
Erik_Mag I wonder if this had anything to do with the "pancake engine" used on some of the ca 1950 USN submarines. An example was the Albacore.
I wonder if this had anything to do with the "pancake engine" used on some of the ca 1950 USN submarines. An example was the Albacore.
While not really a radial, the Pancake engine used several features of radial aero engine design...
https://oldmachinepress.com/2014/08/17/general-motors-electro-motive-16-184-diesel-engine/
Peter
I fished the spec out of the trash when Conrail's Equipment Engineering was moving out of 30th St. Station circa 1980. I'm sure there were other copies that survived. A whole lot of historical stuff was carted away by RR Museum of PA.
In 1966, you are pitching these machines against GE's E44a. You have to have more HP and TE to be able to justify these over the known quantity.
oltmannd How about an EMD DDR, 6700 HP electric? I have an EMD spec/proposal to the PRR dated December 1966 with the details.... Gen'l arrangment... https://photos.app.goo.gl/2f7AcDwXpwgxySp47
How about an EMD DDR, 6700 HP electric? I have an EMD spec/proposal to the PRR dated December 1966 with the details....
Gen'l arrangment...
https://photos.app.goo.gl/2f7AcDwXpwgxySp47
Geez this thing looks incredibly heavy! Per Mr Goding the traction motors were limted to 750 HP. Why not just propose an electric version of the SD45? 4500HP in a Co-Co would that not suffice?
In that case, the battery would probably only be useful for moving the locomotive around in a shop.
Diesel-electrics can do this too, this feature is called the "spotter circuit" or "jog mode". It uses the battery to power a single traction motor.
Greetings from Alberta
-an Articulate Malcontent
SD70DudeI see several notes about a boiler and water & fuel tanks on those DDR drawings, so it seems the design was intended to be capable of operating in passenger service.
The battery is 64V 168ah, and even though the specification says the battery is for 'control and lighting' (there is a 74V rectified tap from #1 transformer for running power for these that may or may not go 'through' the cells) a battery that size would not move a locomotive with 600V traction motors very far. That is not to say it was impossible; the Amtrak P42 has explicit connections to allow it to be hostled on battery power.
I see several notes about a boiler and water & fuel tanks on those DDR drawings, so it seems the design was intended to be capable of operating in passenger service.
Batteries too, would they have just been for operating auxiliaries or was the thing to have been capable of moving itself for short distances on non-electrified track?
If the locomotive would have had thyristor control, it would not have been completely out of the question to incorporate regeneraive braking. This would have been a matter of setting up an additional set of thyristors oriented in the opposite direction from the propulsive thyristors and coming up with a control system for firing the additional thyristors. In both the propulsion and braking cases, commutation of the thyristors would have been handled by the AC from the catenary.
One reason for not doing this is that the regenerated current waveform would have been more or less a square wave which could lead to a distorted voltage waveform. I've seen block diagrams for some European electric locomotives with a single phase converter between the catenary nad the locomotives DC rails that allow power transfer both ways.
CSSHEGEWISCHI am assuming that this proposal was for a rectifier locomotive which precluded regenerative braking since the electronics of the time could not convert DC back into AC.
I am assuming that this proposal was for a rectifier locomotive which precluded regenerative braking since the electronics of the time could not convert DC back into AC.
IA and easternFor those that do not have access to Google can you give some ideal what the DDR looked like.
There are side and end elevation drawings in the last pages of Don's PDF that show the arrangement very well. I'd have to leave it to Don to scan the pages (and stitch the drawing together!) and host it to be seen here.
The locomotive does not have the UP DD full-width cabs, as I had first thought; there are standard cabs with short hoods, but the cabs appear abbreviated compared to contemporary SD45. There are 'road pilots' without footboards. Interestingly the horns are located between the upper number boards, with provision 'to change diaphragms from inside the cab' -- I doubt this would have been tolerable too long in service! Headlights are where they probably should be, in the low short hood where there would be little glare.
Structure between the cabs is narrow hood, probably using typical EMD long-hood components where practical. Pans are Faiveley, in recesses just behind the cab. As noted this is a very long locomotive, over 88' over pulling faces; if you were modeling one you might start with a DD40 frame and trucks and use a couple of SD45 shells for most of the superstructure.
These were built almost like two separate four-axle electric locomotives on a common frame; only the primaries of the HV transformers are intertied to permit one pantograph to supply both main transformers. Interestingly all the specs mention a peak design value of 11kV rather than 12.5. All four motors in each truck were permanently connected in parallel, as expected. Interestingly there is no attempt at regenerative braking at all; the dynamic is dissipated in centrally-located resistance grids.
For those that do not have access to Goggle can you give some ideal what the DDR looked like. Gary
bogie_engineer While working on a design project with him, he gave me a Pratt & Whitney pocket book on aircraft engine design (that I can't find at the moment) that he was given by Gene Kettering to aid him in a radial engine design he was doing as a "government job" in the 50's. The layouts exist in EMD's files so make that an "engine proposed but never built".
While working on a design project with him, he gave me a Pratt & Whitney pocket book on aircraft engine design (that I can't find at the moment) that he was given by Gene Kettering to aid him in a radial engine design he was doing as a "government job" in the 50's. The layouts exist in EMD's files so make that an "engine proposed but never built".
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.