A sudden crazy thought…
We had one “Co-Bo” (or Bo-Co) 5 axle diesel - that’s a 3 axle truck under one end and a 2 axle the other (or the other way round depending on how you look at it) - (on the LMS IIRC). I just suddenly wondered whether there were any weird or whacky wheel arrangements in the US and (if so) why?
TIA
[8D]
Fairbanks-Morse built a cab unit with a similar wheel arrangement, B-A1A. I presume this was to keep the axle-load down, since the C-liners were passenger power with a steam-heat boiler and it’s consumables in the rear of the carbody. EMD’s FL-9 also was a B-A1A, but this was because they could run either under their own power, or off the third rail in electrified territory, like a Southern Class 73 or 74. On the FL-9s, the A1A truck was to provide room to mount a third-rail pickup shoe.
But if you want to see some REALLY strange diesel or electric wheel arrangements, look to Japan!
Cheers,
Mark.
The New Haven’s (and later Penn Central/Conrail/Amtrak/Metro-North/et al) EMD FL9s had 5 axles–a B-B truck in the front, and an A1A truck in the rear. These could run from their diesel powerplant, but could also run as an electric via a third-rail shoe. I think the reason for the odd axle arrangement was to help support the additional mechanical gear.
I know walthers makes a five axle diesel. Not sure of the name but has the looks of a shark.
-Smoke
I did a double take when I say my first pic of a 5 axle. I thought someone Photo Shopped it. Didn’t know such a thing was ever built. I saw a post about a 5 wheeler on another site. No idea what that could be. I always wondered why they call a 10 wheeler a 10 wheeler and not a 4-6-0.
Mark,
What’s so unusual about a B-C (Not Bo-Co, the axles are linked by gearing) DE10 class diesel-hydraulic? Or a B-2-B, DD51 class. Or any of the numerous classes of Bo-Bo-Bo electrics? It’s all those other people from outside the Land of the Rising Sun who build strange stuff!!
Loathar,
The reason a 4-6-0 is called a ten-wheeler is that a 4-4-0 was called an eight-wheeler and a 4-8-0 was called a twelve-wheeler. So, quick, what would you call a 2-8-8T? (HONK, HONK! as it blows you off the road.)
My own contribution to the world of strange is the TTT SeKi500 class 7-axle articulated coal hopper…[:-^]
Chuck (modeling Central Japan in September, 1964 - with some of the locos mentioned above)
Dave-the-Train,
I don’t recall any B-C diesels in the US, but, as mentioned, B-A1A’s were made by both F-M (CPA24-5’s) and EMD (FL9’s & FL18’s…well, that’s what they should be called…they are after all a GP18 internally).
You also have some wacky electric wheel arrangements (like 1-B-B-1 or 1-C-1+1-C-1).
As for other odd diesels, you had Budd RDC’s with their 1A-A1 wheel arrangement, or wierder yet, the “Roger Williams” New Haven RDC train set with it’s AA-AA wheel arrangement. And then there’s the big Alco with it’s B-B-B-B arrangement, and the Baldwin Centipede (which was 2-D+D-2…I think).
Mark,
Actually, the FL9 was not built originally for 3rd rail service. It was originally a “water buffalo” design made for long distance passenger trains out west, as the problem out there was not the range of the loco’s fuel supply, but that they would run out of water for steam heat. According to an ex-EMD employee named Preston Cook (who gives public speeches about EMD, Alco, etc.), he discovered this fact while going through old EMD documents, and he even found and shows a technical drawing (an EMD catalog entry) showing what is described as an FL9, but with large internal water tanks both fore and aft of the prime mover and no 3rd rail gear.
It’s his conclusion that EMD created the FL9 design, but had no customers for it. The New Haven came knocking in 1955 for an Electric/Diesel-Electric design, and EMD dusted off their FL9 plans, pulled the water tanks, added 3rd rail gear, and viola! A NH EDER-5 (NH’s class code).
There’s some debate on whether the 5th axle was really needed for Park Avenue’s notoriously weak viaduct, as the 3rd rail gear isn’t nearly as heavy as the large quantity of water that wasn’t being carried. But it was probably just as easy to keep it than to design a while new frame. They certainly
Yes, the US DID have a Bo-Co diesel. Its called an NW3.
This was done due to weight limitations along parts of the line. Locos with two three axle trucks were deemed to be too heavy so a design was submitted for locos with a two axle truck in front and a three axle truck in the rear.
I thought that an NW3 was a switcher?
Any pics of any of these weird locos?
I called it a Co-Bo (or Bo-Co) using UK/European practice in which we add the “o” for absolutely no apparent reason. I think the Europeans mainly stopped doing this.
Diesel Mechanicals [shunters at least - I vaguely recall that there were a few mainline mechanicals… LMS??? I think that these were written up as for steam as well] (almost all 0-6-0) are designated by steam practice (the others being 0-4-0). It occurs to me, diesel hydraulics (the Westerns and battleships) were designated the same as Diesel Electrics. They were seriously noisy.
We had one Class (The Peaks IIRC) that had a smaller leading unpowered single axle on each 3 (Powered) axle truck (total 4 axles). IIRC these were 1-Co-Co-1. The idea was that they took curves better at high speed. The Class was quite numerous (for the UK) but the practice wasn’t adopted for any other locos.
The Swiss had some weird and wacky electrics with a large “fly wheel” high above the carrying and drive wheels with a connecting rod to one (at least) of the drivers… these seemed to last a long time.
Which is more fun? A string of bog-standard locos or the weird odd one?
[^]
No, NW3s were B-B - they had Blomberg B trucks under both ends.
I have two of 5 axle C-Liners by TrueLine Trains in CN colours 6700 and 6701. As stated above they were used for passenger service and the reason was to support the weight of a steam generator.
Fergie
Dave, the reason for the letter “o” is as Paul stated, to indicate an axle individually driven by a separate traction motor, as opposed to axles coupled by rods, gears, chains, or multiple axles driven by a “monomotor”.
The big “flywheel” is the output end of either one or two large traction motors mounted in the carbody, very often using single or 3-phase AC. Other countries had such locos, France, Hungary, Japan and the US, for example.
The weird ones, no question!
Cheers,
Mark.
That’s a very interesting background you’ve posted, Paul. I’m not all that familiar with the FL-9s, so I took the usual information given about them at face value. But what you’ve stated certainly makes sense to me. Makes me wonder if the the “L” in the designation stands for “long-range”?
At any rate, I know a good deal more now about FL-9s than I did earlier - thanks, and good on yer!
All the best,
Mark.
Chuck, you’re not wrong! I look at the various JNR diesels and electrics as no doubt you do - to me there’s nothing strange about them at all!
Speaking of JNR electrics, I picked up something a bit different the other day, an Otaki plastic kit for an EF58, in HOj! Have you ever seen these? It’s obviously intended for kids, but the body moulding is rather nice. I’m thinking of using it as kitbash fodder for a Sangi Tetsudo EL.
Cheers,
Mark,
tomikawaTT:
Just wondering if you know of any good aggregate sites listing Japanese post WWII locomotives & rolling stock - Wiki does have articles on individual classes, but unlike the (rather well laid out UK loco articles) there seems to be no one ‘master’ listing.
Also unlike UK or US railroads there seems to be rather a lack of fans sites coming up in google for Japanese Locomotives (half of which seem to refer to growth of the economy, as in ‘locomotive driving GDP’) and I don’t have to say what ‘Japanese Engines’ brings up. Anyway most sites seem to be history of building the Japanese railroads, not loco or rolling stock sites.
Perhaps you have some favorite sites to share?
The PRR had a B-B-B electric. GM made and experimental C-C-C electric. UP had D-D, B-B+B-B diesels. Baldwin made several variations of 2-D+D-2 diesels. I think the TM had some 1-D diesels, possibly boxcabs IIRC. The MP had a A-1-A+3 diesel (an E6 with only one end powered, the other end was a baggage compartment).
Dave H.
Im almost positive I saw a pictue of them with a B-C arrangement, becasue I remember going “Wow! Thats neat!”
9jeffrey-wimberly,
While I’m not dismissing the argument about weight restrictions on the NH (the Park Avenue Viaduct was the issue) and the decision to use a 5-axle design, the original idea of the FL9 was as above (for extra water). And, looking at my actual EMD F9 Operating Manual No. 2315, 2nd edition, July 1957 “F9-0-657” (with supplement “FL9-E-1157”), it states that water capacity (for units with dynamics) for the FP9A as 1350 gal., the F9B as 1400 gal., and the FL9 as a whopping 2450 gal. I have talked to an FL9 engineers when this came up on the NH Forum, and he have told me there’s no way that the FL9 as built for the NH had 2450 gal. capacity. This leads me to conclude that the EMD Manual is referring to the “as planned” FL9 water capacity.
Was the removal of over 4.5 tons of water capacity from the original FL9 design enough to drop the weight down to where it would pass over the Park Ave. Viaduct on only 4 axles? I dunno. There’s still that extra 4 feet in length over an FP9, so that adds up, too. Hmm… I’m thinking they kept the 5th axle because of the room, rather than the weight of the 3rd rail gear, but I could be wrong.
Mark,
Thanks for the kind words. Good point about that “L”, BTW. I never thought of that. Most people just assume it’s for “Long” (tho’ most crews on the NH called them “effing Lousy Nines” as they could not hold a candle in performance to any loco they replaced, but especially the electrics).
Paul A. Cutler III
Weather Or No Go New Haven
Paul: I went bacvk and looked at the video tape I have about the NH design and it states that the main reasons for the three axle truck was for the added weight of additional equipment and to meet the weight restrictions of the viaduct, as you stated. I can’t see the loco carrying 2,450 gallons of water though. That’s 10.41 tons of dead weight and that’s just the weight of the water, not the tank. The 1,350 gallons sounds much more plausible, that’s 5.74 tons (water weight).