FT & F3s were generally freight locomotives. Although I have never seen a photo or footage, would it have been prototypical for an FT A or A-B unit to be MU’d to an F3 A or A-B unit on occasion? Or, did they have different gearing? I’m modeling the NYC…should that make any difference.
Thanks,
Tom
Tom,As you know NYC was not shy in mixing locomotive consist-example F7A,F7A,GP7,F7B RS-11,F3A.
I have no doubts NYC consisted a FT with a F3 and more then likely in a all cab unit consist to boot with a repowered FM cab unit thrown in the mix.
Great point, Larry. I’ve seen footage of some real hodge-podge NYC consists that were NOT being taken to the scrap yard. [(-D]
Tom
Burlington bought 5400 horsepower FT A-B-B-A sets and found that they were a bit more than they needed. So they split the A-B-B-A’s into 2700 horsepower A-B sets and bought several single 1500 horsepower F3A’s so that they could create 3 unit, 4200 horsepower FTA-B/F3A sets. As long as the gearing matched, it worked. I understand there may have been some electrical differences between some of the early units and later ones, and I understand B&O upgraded some early F3 units to match later F7’s for greater compatibility. Mixing dynamic brake units with non-dynamic units may have been another concern.
On the NYC in Central Ohio in the 1950’s, there didn’t seem to be a lot of mixing and matching until after the steam era was about over. Road power seemed to be mostly two unit sets of matched covered wagons, with the ocasional three unit set.
After the 1950’s, the NYC was known for some mixed diesel consists that would put the dog’s breakfast to shame!
Tom
As built the FT’s had an MU system that was not compatible with later EMDs. So GM offered F2’s and F3’s with an FT compatible MU as an option. Boston and Maine went this route as did some others. Of course the F2’s or F3’s so equipped could not be MUed with anything else because of the non standard MU.
Other lines elected to rewire the FT’s to make them compatible with the standard MU. GN and NP were examples of this.
Still others just operated the FT’s alone or with other FT’s. The Reading was one of this group.
You will have to determine which course your railroad followed.
I believe the Chicago & North Western did exactly the same thing, which makes me assume that the salesmen at EMD might have originated that idea.
Dave Nelson
The Central did, too. They bought a pair of F2s, DFA-1b, 1604 and 1605 to mate with the A-B FTs in order to get a cab at the other end of an A-B-A arrangement. They were essentially F3s but with the D8 generator they were rated at 1,350 HP. Unlike the FT, they had three evenly spaced “portholes” but still had the small side mounted number boards.
Here’s one of the F2s trailing in this group of locomotives including an FM C-liner B unit!
https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1559/24656769652_1d9665917d_k.jpg
Page 65 of David Sweetland’s Lightning Stripes shows FT pair 1603-2403 MUed with F7 #1690 working a Rockport-Collinwood (Ohio) transfer job. He notes that this pair of FTs along with 1600 and 2400, had extensive rewiring and had lasted five years longer in service than her sisters, being traded in to EMD in November of 1964. Page 63 shows 1600 and 2400 mated with a (leased) Boston and Maine GP7 #1557. How’s that for variety?
The Central thought they were going to need the additional tractive effort to overcome the Berkshires on the B&A so they bought two sets of A-B-A F3s with steam generators and passenger gearing. As it turned out, the E7s handled the B&A grades just fine and eventually the F3s wound up on the Big Four until being regeared for freight and the steam generators removed in late 1958.
Railroads and their chief mechanical officers were still learning what they could do with the new technology.
Ed
I recently saw, but don’t recall where, another NP (I think) shot where there was the FT AB on the rear and a “regular” F (A or AB) on the front. What was especially notable was the narrow gap between the FT A and B, compared with the other gaps. A neat thing to model, I think.
Ed
Ed,
My Malwarebytes says that the link to the photo at “oocities.org” is stinky— as in virus affected.
Maybe find another photo or another host for that photo?
Ed2
Interesting, Ed. It looks like the F2 had an ungraded dynamic brake system, and it looks like the original high fans have been replaced.
Do you know where and when the photo was taken?
Tom
I took the photo down.
Ed
[:D]
As originally designed, the A and B FT units could only be joined by a drawbar. There was no provision to provide couplers between the two. (EMD thought of it like a Mallet, two engines together in one.) That’s why the FTs are closer together; the FT set and the other F unit are connected by couplers.
As several folks have mentioned, many railroads bought F2 and F3 A-units to create three unit sets with a FT A-B set. The problem with FTs was that each FT unit had 1350 HP, so your only choices were two units at 2700 HP (about like a typical 2-8-2) or four units (two A-B sets back to back) at 5400 HP (about like a 2-8-8-2). However, most 1940’s mainline trains needed around 4000 HP. After WW2, many railroads bought F2 and F3 A-units to create three unit sets with a FT A-B set, creating 4050 HP (with an F2) or 4200 (with an F3) of motive power.
Tom,Just for you… I took this photo in 61 or 62. I use to visit the switch tender in that shanty…I walked from the one of the platforms of the CUS to reach the shanty…Railroads was far more relax back then.I was around 13 years old then.Life was good.
Hi, Tom
That is a great photo by J. Parker Lamb. Lots of his photos have appeared in Trains and Classic Trains.
Go to the menu tab “collections” here and select from the great photographers listed there:
http://www.railphoto-art.org/collections/lamb/
Then go to “Browse Collections”
This photo is in the first group. It was taken near Dayton, maybe the cut near Kauffman Rd.? in April of 1956.
Many other Excellent photos are at that site!
Enjoy, Ed
In later years, F-units could be paired with any locomotive in a freight train.
Example, F7A, FAB, RS3,
From my readings, in the 40s and early 50s many of the RRs tried to keep pristine combos of locos on their trains, especially the name passenger runs. But as the RRs faltered in the late '50s and for the next couple of decades, more and more the theme of “whatever works” was the rule as to what powered a given train.
Yes of course there were a lot of exceptions, but in general…